The court may allow the recall of witnesses to adduce further evidence if it serves the interests of justice and the evidence could not have been reasonably obtained before the trial.

[1] Enclosure 38 is the Defendants' application for leave to recall the 1st Defendant (DW1) and the Plaintiff's witness, Dato' AdrianTeh Kok Hong (PW2) to testify pursuant to s 138(4) of the Evidence Act 1950 and/or O 1A and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 and/or under the inherent power of the Court. The Grounds for the Application

[2] The grounds for the application are as follows:-

(i) The Plaintiff's Forensic Report was adduced at the very last minute. The Court allowed the Defendants to engage its own Forensic Expert to verify and ascertain facts stated in the Plaintiff's Forensic Report. The Defendants reserved their rights to cross-examine the Plaintiff's expert witness on the Plaintiff's Forensic Report after consultation and advice received from theDefendants' Forensic Expert.

(ii) The report adduced by the Defendants' Forensic expert pertaining to the review of the Plaintiff's Forensic Report indicates that there may be an existence of manipulation of the laptop which may have a serious impact or consequence on the findings of the Plaintiff's Forensic Expert.

(iii) The integrity of the Plaintiff's Forensic Report needsto be determined by asking PW2 further questions because there exist time frames that are unaccounted for which is the time between the laptop was taken away from DW1 and to the time the laptop was givento the Plaintiff's Forensic Expert.

(iv) The application is bona fide, warranted not frivolous to delay proceedings.

(v) The justice of the case demands that both DW1 and PW2 to be recalled to give evidence.

(vi) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case the balance of convenience lies in favor of theDefendants.

The Cause Papers

[3] The relevant cause papers are as follows:

(a) the Notice of Application filed ("Application");

(b) the Defendants' Affidavit in Support affirmed by Ng LeePeng on 2 June 2015 ("the Defendant's Affidavit");

(c) the Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Teh Kok Hongon 9 June 2015 ("the Plaintiff's Affidavit");

(d) the Defendants' Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Ng LeePeng on 12 June 2015 ("the Defendant's Affidavit (2)");

(e) the Re-amended Statement of Claim re-dated 6 April 2015;and

(f) the Defendants' Amended Defence and 1st Defendant's Counter claim re-dated 8 January 2015.

Background

[4] The trial commenced on 13 April 2015 and continued on 14 April 2015. The Plaintiff called 3 witnesses and the Defendants called 5 witnesses to give evidence.

[5] Before the trial commenced on 13 APRIL 2015, the Plaintiff had by way of the Affidavit affirmed by one Andrew Lai Tsun Khiong on 1 April 2015 for and on behalf of Deloitte Corporate Solutions Sdn Bhd, sought to adduce a computer Forensic Investigation Report dated 20 March 2015 as evidence ('the Plaintiff's Forensic Report'). The Plaintiff's Forensic Report is with regards to the laptop that was assigned to the 1st Defendant when she was employed with the Plaintiff. PW1, Andrew Lai Tsun Khiong was called to give evidence on 13 April 2015.

[6] Since the Plaintiff had produced the Plaintiff's Forensic Expert's Report on the day the trial commenced upon the application of the Learned Counsel for the Defendants, this Court had allowed the Defendants' time to enable the Defendants to engage its own Forensic Expert to verify and ascertain the facts stated in the saidForensic Report.

[7] The Counsel for the Defendants had reserved her right tocross-examine the Plaintiff's Forensic Expert on the Plaintiff'sForensic Report as she would need to refer the aforesaid report to the Defendants' Forensic Expert. The trial was then adjourned to 5 June 2015 for the respective experts to give their evidences inrespect of the Plaintiff's Forensic Report.

[8] The Defendants then engaged one, Mr Sanjay Si