Amendment of pleadings allowed to add necessary parties and supplement claims without causing injustice, highlighting the importance of addressing all relevant issues in one proceeding.

JUDGMENT

Adlin Abdul Majid JC:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff filed an application to add parties and to amend the writ and statement of claim in this action ("Amendment Application").

[2] The court allowed the Amendment Application. The reasons for this decision are as set out below.

Background Facts

[3] The plaintiffs are companies within the Smart Glove group of companies ("Smart Glove Group"). The group is in the business of manufacturing and selling of gloves. The glove-manufacturing process requires thermal heat which is obtained from the two heat supply companies in the Smart Glove Group, namely the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs use palm kernel shells ("PKS") as the main sourceof fuel to generate biomass energy and thermal heat, which would in turn be supplied to the 3rd plaintiff, for glove-manufacturing activities. Woodchips and wood pellets are alternative fuel sources.

[4] The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs purchase PKS from various suppliers in the market. They also source woodchips and wood pellets from either specific woodchip suppliers or suppliers of PKS.

[5] The 1st defendant was the 3rd plaintiff's Global Sourcing Manager. His duties include sourcing and procuring various items for companies within the Smart Glove Group. The major items sourced are PKS and woodchips.

[6] After the 1st defendant left the employment of the Smart Glove Group in late 2019, the plaintiffs discovered that the 1st defendant had set up companies (including the 2nd and 3rd defendants) to supply PKS and/or woodchips to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that this is a breach of the 1st defendant's duties to the 3rd defendant and/or the Smart Glove Group.

[7] The plaintiffs thus filed a claim against the defendants, for breach of duty of fidelity and breach of fiduciary duty, concerted practice, and for illegal commissions and bribes.

[8] In the course of proceedings, the plaintiffs obtained an Anton Pillar order ("Anton Pillar Order") against the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that during the execution of the Anton Pillar Order, more evidencehad been unveiled, and that this new evidence necessitated the filing of the Amendment Application.

The Amendment Application

[9] There are two main prayers in the Amendment Application, namely:

a. For new parties to be added and joined as the 4th to 11th defendants, pursuant to O 15 r 6 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC"); and

b. For the writ and statement of claim to be amended, pursuant to O 20 r 5 of the ROC.

Proposed Addition Of New Parties

[10] In relation to the prayer to add and join new parties, the plaintiffs relied on O 15 r 6(2)(b), which provides as follows:

"(2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application -

...

(b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely -

(i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or

(ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter. "

[Emphasis Added]

[11] The plaintiffs argued that the execution of the Anton Pillar Order, and investigation reports subsequently produced, revealed amongst others, that:

a. The defendants had been obtaining PKS supplies from the same key PKS suppliers of the Smart Glove Group. The defendants' purchase price for PKS was lower than that of the Smart Glove Group.

b. The 1st defendant had been coordinating with PKS suppliers to control the supply and pricing of PKS to the Smart Glove Group, as well as other