To intervene in a civil suit, a party must demonstrate a legal interest that would be affected by the judgment, not merely a commercial interest.

JUDGMENT

Gan Techiong JC:

Introduction

[1] The Amended Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiffs in this case on 16th February 2023 is a lengthy one. In the sixty-four paragraphs, the Plaintiffs pleaded, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud and breach of fiduciary duties as their causes of action against the five Defendants. Thus, when a company by the name of Kaito Gin Holdings Berhad suddenly filed an application for leave to intervene (Enclosure 187) in March this year to be added as a co-plaintiff, it was met with vehement objection by all the Defendants.

[2] Whilst it is permissible for a party who has a legal interest in the outcome of a pending action in court to intervene and be named as a party in the proceedings, should this court allow the holding company of one of the plaintiffs in this civil suit to intervene and be named as a co-plaintiff more than a year after this civil suit was filed?

[3] The 2nd Plaintiff Kaito Gin Sdn Bhd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Proposed Intervener Kaito Gin Holdings Berhad. In other words, the Proposed Intervener is the holding company of the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st Plaintiff and her daughter, one Lim Pei Pei, are directors of both the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs. Kaito Gin Holdings Berhad had filed its application (Enclosure 187) on 7th March 2024 to intervene in this civil suit that has been pending since January 2023, and which has been fixed for trial in November this year. It is worth mentioning that the Proposed Intervener's said application was supported by an affidavit affirmed by the 1st Plaintiff's daughter, the said Miss Lim Pei Pei, albeit in her capacity as a director of the Proposed Intervener.

[4] After hearing learned counsel for the Proposed Intervener and respective learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, I decided to dismiss the said application (Enclosure 187), with costs to be paid by the Proposed Intervener to each Defendant. My reasons are as follows.

Background Facts

[5] As highlighted above, the Plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim pleaded, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud and breach of fiduciary duties as their causes of action against the five Defendants.

[6] As this civil suit has been fixed for trial in November this year, I shall not touch on the merits of the pleadings. It should suffice, for the purpose of dealing with the Proposed Intervener's said application, for me to sum up that the reliefs sought in the Plaintiffs' prayers are for:

(i) General Damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud and breach of fiduciary duties;

(ii) declarations that a Letter of Undertaking signed by the 1st Plaintiff in favour of the 4th Defendant is invalid, illegal and unenforceable against her; and

(iii) two registered land charges (in favour of the 4th Defendant as the chargee) on two plots of land to be declared invalid.

[7] The salient facts pleaded in the Plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim are that the 1st Defendant approached the 1st Plaintiff and represented that he was able to obtain financing for development of land. The 1st Plaintiff pleaded that the 1st Defendant introduced her to the 2nd Defendant, and subsequently they advised her to purchase 8 plots of land in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur ("the Development Land") at a price of RM21million for development purpose. The 2nd Plaintiff was incorporated for the purpose of purchasing the 8 plots of development land. The 1st Plaintiff further pleaded that the 1st Defendant and/or 2nd Defendant advised her that about RM50 million to RM60 million would be required to finance the purchase of the Development Land and its future development.

[8] The Plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim went on to plead that the 3rd Defendant was roped in by the 1st Defendant and/or 2nd Defendant as a consultant to assist in obtaining the financing for the Development Land.

[9] The 3rd Defendant then approached the 4th Defendant to quote for its services to a