A suit cannot be consolidated if it involves fundamentally different legal principles and potential for conflicting judgments, particularly when the parties involved differ significantly.

Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application filed by the plaintiffs for the present suit to be tried together with a set of three other suits under O 4 r 1 of the Rules of 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing via Zoom, the application, which was opposed by all defendants in this suit and all parties in the other suits, was dismissed, and the principal grounds for the decision were highlighted to the parties. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.

Key Background Facts

[2] On 4 June 2018, Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd ("Synergy Promenade") filed a defamation action ("Suit 26") against Tan Sri Sharil Ab Samad. The former is the seventh defendant in the instant suit whilst the latter is the second defendant.

[3] On 12 June 2018, Synergy Promenade filed a suit against New Straits Times Press (M) Berhad ("NSTP") and its journalist Che Wan Badrul Alias ("Suit 31") for alleged defamation for publishing various news articles.

[4] On 17 May 2019, Synergy Promenade filed another defamation action against NSTP and another of its journalist, Ahmad Suhael Adnan ("Suit 22"). NSTP and its two journalists are not parties in the instant suit.

[5] Pursuant to orders dated 13 June 2019 and 16 January 2020, all three Suit 26, Suit 31 and Suit 22 were directed to be consolidated and tried together (collectively, "the defamation suits").

[6] On 14 November 2019, the plaintiffs filed the instant writ action alleging conspiracy to defraud against 21 defendants ("Suit 843"). It is to be noted that the fifth, sixth and seventh defendants in this Suit 843 are the plaintiffs in the defamation suits.

[7] One year later, on 27 November 2020, the plaintiffs in this Suit 843 filed this application under O 4 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 ("the RC 2012") for the defamation suits be tried immediately after the trial of this Suit 843. This is the instant encl 206.

The Principal Grounds In Support Of The Application

[8] The first point advanced by the plaintiffs in support of their application is the argument that there are some common questions of law or fact arising in Suit 843 and the defamation suits.

[9] These include whether the approval of the Minister pursuant to s 3(3)(c) of the Land Development Act 1956 had been obtained in respect of the KLVC project and the relevant development agreement, whether the appointment of Synergy Promenade as the master developer of the KLVC project was properly carried out, whether the defendants committed fraud or conspiracy to defraud the first plaintiff, whether the transfer or acquisitions of the first plaintiff's Semarak lands by the seventh and eighth defendants was wrongful and illegal, and whether the first plaintiff received any payment or monetary consideration in respect of the sale and transfer of its Semarak lands under the relevant sale and purchase agreements and the memorandum of transfer.

[10] The plaintiffs then argued that there is substantial overlap in the issues in Suit 843 and defamation suits as can be seen from the trial documents in the defamation suits which substantially relate to the dealings between the plaintiffs, the seventh and eighth defendants, the Semarak lands and the issues in Suit 843.

[11] The factual assertions made in the witness statements of the second and fifth defendants (in the defamation suits) substantially relate to the dealings between the plaintiffs, the seventh and eighth defendants, the Semarak lands and the issues in Suit 843. This Suit 843 and the defamation suits would both require a determination of the issues common to the suits.

[12] This is especially when all the defendants in the defamation suits are relying on the defences of justification and fair comment which require a determination of the true facts. Apart from the alleged defamatory statements in the defamation suits, both Suit 843 and defamation suits involve dealings or disputes between among others the plaintiffs, the fifth to the eighth defendants concerning the KLVC projec