3 Two Square Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square

Appellant(s): Two Square Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square

• YAA Datuk Seri Panglima Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh
• YAA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi
• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar

• The respondent initiated a civil suit against the appellant for negligence and nuisance, seeking damages for alleged construction defects in common property.
• The appellant filed an application under Order 14A and Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012 for the preliminary determination of legal issues, including limitation and *res judicata*, which was dismissed by the High Court.
• The respondent subsequently filed a motion in the Court of Appeal to strike out the appellant's appeal, contending that the dismissal of the application is non-appealable under Section 68(1)(f) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA 1964).

• Whether the prohibition against appeals under Section 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964, which applies to the dismissal of applications to strike out writs or pleadings, extends to the dismissal of applications for the determination of preliminary issues under Order 14A and Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012.
• Whether the legislative intent behind the amendment to Section 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964 was to curtail all interlocutory appeals or only those specifically identified in the Hansard.
• Whether the principle established in *MT Ventures Sdn Bhd & Anor v QM Print Sdn Bhd* permits an appeal where a preliminary determination finally disposes of the rights of the parties, notwithstanding the general restrictions in Section 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964.

• The Court (via a minority judgment) held that Section 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964 must be interpreted literally and is confined strictly to applications to strike out under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012, and does not extend to applications under Order 14A or Order 33.
• The Court determined that the legislative intent of the amendment was limited to specific categories of interlocutory matters, and that the Court should not read additional categories into the statute where the language is clear and unambiguous.
• Following the Federal Court’s ruling in *MT Ventures Sdn Bhd*, the Court concluded that where a decision on a preliminary point of law finally disposes of the rights of the parties (such as *res judicata* or limitation), the right of appeal is preserved and not barred by Section 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964.