A claim for conspiracy must adequately plead essential elements, including an agreement to injure; failure to do so leads to dismissal.

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 56 - 5th, 9th and 10th Defendant striking out application, Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a))

Johan Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee JC:

Introduction

[1] These Defendants subscribed and/or invested monies in the Click Subscription Plan. Click Subscribtion Plan was offered by the Plaintiff's company known as Click Internet Traffic Sdn Bhd ("Click") through an online application where certain returns on investment were offered to investors.

[2] After a period of time, the Plaintiff alleged that the Click application had been hacked. Based on that reason, the Plaintiff stopped paying subscribers their returns on investments. These Defendants demanded for the refund of their capital investments and for his downlines. The Plaintiff had refused and/or failed to do so. These Defendants and the other defendants then lodged police reports against the Plaintiff for cheating and for masterminding a money game. The Plaintiff refuted the same and said that the allegations in the police reports were not true.

[3] As a result of the police reports, the Plaintiff was detained by the police ("PDRM") to assist in their investigation. While the Plaintiff was detained, the 15th Defendant (an unknown Chinese male) ("D15") allegedly approached the Plaintiff's sister ("Ann"). Ann was asked to contact the first Defendant ("D1') who is the 2nd Defendant's ("D2") solicitor on the refund of the investments to avoid indefinite incarceration.

[4] Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the Suit against these Defendants inter alia for general, aggravated or exemplary damages against these Defendants as global sum on the tort of conspired to Injury, slander, and extortion on the Plaintiff.

[5] Thereafter, these Defendants filed the Application under O 18 r 19(1)(a) to strike out the Plaintiff's claims against them.

Submission By These Defendants

[6] Briefly, these Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff's statement of claim was a plain and obvious case to be struck off as it discloses no reasonable cause of action based on these following points.

[7] Firstly, there was no reasonable cause of action provided in the Plaintiff's statement of claim. This is because based on the defence filed by the Defendants respectively, there was no indication that these Defendants was acquainted and/or connected and/or known to the rest of the Defendants. These Defendants have no knowledge who Gideon is and all this while these Defendants had only acted upon the representations by one Dato Sai Soong Heng.

[8] Moreover, it was obvious that the Plaintiff had failed to plead and/or particularise any relevant facts which show the existence of any agreement, meeting of minds, and/or a common intention between the Defendants to injure the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff's claim under conspiracy to injure is unsustainable. To this, these Defendants referred to numerous case law including the leading authority, Renault SA v. Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals, 2003 MarsdenLR 2256 .

Submission By The Plaintiff

[9] In opposing the Application, the Plaintiff alleged that the Application was defective as it was filed without any affidavit in support. Thus, it was not proper for this court to strike out the Suit as these Defendants have also failed to reply to the Interrogatories filed and duly served on them. The Plaintiff premised that these Defendants' action in not replying to the Interrogatories under O 26, r 2 ROC was fatal.

[10] The Plaintiff also submitted that, these Defendants had only raised bare denial to para 34 of the statement of claim and could not explain how they had obtained the Plaintiff's personal information to be included in their police reports. To this, the Plaintiff relied on s 114A of Evidence Act 1950 and argued that the circulation of Plaintiff's private and personal information via electronic media was undeniable. The Plaintiff also quoted the case of YB Dato Hj Husam Hj Musa v. Mohd Faisal Rohban Ahmad , 2015 MarsdenLR 401 .

[11] Therefore, it was the Plaintiff's