The court has discretion to deny a plaintiff's request to discontinue an action without liberty to file afresh, particularly when the case is at an advanced stage and the plaintiff fails to provide sufficient reasons for withdrawal.

Mohd Arief Emran Arifin J:

(Application To Discontinue)

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's Counsel had on the second day of the trial applied to have the suit discontinued with liberty to file afresh. The application was made orally by Counsel for the Plaintiff.

[2] Note that I have enquired as to the need that such a request must be undertaken through a notice of motion and an affidavit in reply. Counsel for the Defendants countenanced that the requirement to file an application with a supporting affidavit should be dispensed with in view of the status of this suit. As parties agreed to dispense with this requirement, I then proceeded to hear the said application.

[3] This Court after considering the oral application by the Plaintiff's Counsel and the issues put forth by the Defendants' Counsel finds that leave to withdraw the claim should be allowed without liberty to file afresh and costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to each set of Defendants' solicitors.

[4] My reasons for making such orders are provided in the following paragraphs.

B. Decision Not Allowing Withdrawal With Liberty To File Afresh

[5] It is important that this Court notes that this is a 2022 case. The chronology of this case's history is important:

(i) Writ Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 14 September 2022.

(ii) An application for a Mareva Injunction was filed by the Plaintiff and such an order was obtained before Justice Wan Muhammad Amin bin Wan Yahya on 5 October 2022 against D1 to D7.

(iii) The Plaintiff then added the 8th to 15th Defendants as additional Defendants pursuant to the Court order date 7 July 2023.

(iv) Case Managements were held on 7 July 2023, 8 August 2023, 23 August 2023, 30 August 2023, 21 September 2023, 6 November 2023, 12 December 2023, 16 January 2024, 29 February 2024, 1 April 2024, 22 April 2024, 2 May 2024, 3-7-2-2024, 5 November 2024, 9 January 2025, 21 January 2025, 21 March 2025 and 28 March 2025.

(v) The trial of this claim was fixed to be heard for 13 days beginning from 7 April 2025 to 30 April 2025.

(vi) Directions were given for filing of bundle of pleadings, issues to be tried, agreed facts, bundle of documents and witness statements. Clear guidance and directions were given by this Court that these directions are to be complied with and that no additional documents will be entertained unless leave of Court is granted. Sufficient and reasonable explanation must be provided before any new documents are allowed to be filed so as to ensure that case management directions are complied with.

[6] This Court further notes that the trial did proceed on 7 April 2025. The Plaintiff chose to produce one Kabilarasan Pramisavam as its first witness. He had been subjected to cross-examination by Counsel for the 8th to 15th Defendants and the 1st to 7th Defendants. Substantial issues were raised by the Defendant showing discrepancies and issues in the Plaintiff's claim for fraud and other alleged misconduct against the Defendants.

[7] On the 2nd day of trial, the Plaintiff tried to adduce additional documents by way of a Notice of Application in encl 268. This application was not supported by an affidavit. The Plaintiff tried to adduce new evidence in its attempt to repair the weakness and issues raised by the Defendants and argued that these new documents should be allowed as the failure to adduce them earlier was caused by the alleged negligence or failure of the previous solicitors and that this will prejudice the Plaintiff's claim.

[8] After considering the said application and the objections raised by the Defendants, I did not allow the new evidence to be tendered at this late stage. The Plaintiff's Counsel admits that the evidence was available to his client and should have added these evidences earlier but the fault for the delay in filing the documents lies with the previous solicitors and his client should not be blamed for the same.

[9] I find that this excuse or proposition put forth by the Plaintiff's Counsel is not acceptabl