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, a