The court upheld that a plaintiff must demonstrate the necessity of joining parties for effective adjudication, and introducing new causes of action in a joinder application is impermissible.

JUDGMENT

Suria Kumar Dj Paul JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of LSJ dismissing the Appellant/Plaintiff's application to add three new (3) Defendants and to amend her Writ and Statement of Claim in consequence of the proposed joinder.

[2] The Respondents/Defendants opposed the said application.

[3] Parties will be referred to as the Plaintiff and Defendants respectively.

Background Facts

[4] The Plaintiff is a shareholder in the 1st Defendant company and the 2nd Defendant is a director of the 1st Defendant company.

[5] The Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant are husband and wife and they are separated. The divorce proceeding between them is pending.

[6] Plaintiff's cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants is for the return of the sum RM 259,500.00 that she had loaned to the 1st Defendant at the request of the 1st Defendant from time to time.

[7] In the alternative, the Plaintiff's cause of action against the 2nd Defendant is for the return of the loan repayment sum of RM192,750.00.

[8] According to Plaintiff, the repayment sum of RM192,750.00 made by the 1st Defendant towards the loan which the 2nd Defendant received via instalment payments purportedly on her behalf was never received by her.

[9] The Plaintiff pleads not to know about the vouchers evidencing these repayments to the 2nd Defendants and states that it was falsified.

[10] Plaintiff further pleads that the 1st and 2nd Defendants cheated her, committed gross negligence and or conspired to commit fraud on her in connection with the repayment sum of RM192,750.00.

[11] In addition, Plaintiff also claims general damages against both Defendants for conspiracy to commit fraud and or for negligence.

[12] The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants are as follows:

a) "Defendan Pertama dan/atau Defendan Kedua Bersama-sama dan berasingan membayar gantirugi am kepada Plaintif, bagi tindakan konspirasi untuk melakukan frod seperti yang ditetapkan dan/atau ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia;

b) Defendan Pertama membayar gantirugi am kepada Plaintif bagi kecuaian dan/atau kecuaian melampau seperti yang ditetapkan dan/atau ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia;

c) Defendan Kedua membayar gantirugi am kepada Plaintif bagi kecuaian dan/atau kecuaian melampau seperti yang ditetapkan dan/atau ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia.

d) Defendan Pertama dan/atau Defendan Kedua membayar kembali kepada Plaintif sejumlah wang sebanyak RM259,500.00 sebagai gantirugi khas;

e) Defendan Kedua membayar kembali kepada Plaintif sejumlah wang sebanyak RM192,750.00 sebagai gantirugi khas;"

1st Defendant's Defence

[13] The Plaintiff was the nominee and or trustee and or agent of the 2nd Defendant who provided funds to the 1st Defendant for RM 259,500.00 which is equivalent to 15% shareholding in the 1st Defendant company.

[14] The sum of RM 259,500.00 was paid in instalments from 2007 till August 2014. There was no agreement as to when the 1st Defendant will repay this sum and all these dealings are in the personal knowledge of the Plaintiff.

[15] The sum RM192,750.00 repaid by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant is within the full knowledge of the Plaintiff. The 2nd Defendant acknowledged receiving this payment which was part of his investment and it was not a loan.

[16] The 1st Defendant pleads that as a shareholder, the Plaintiff has the right to inspect the annual income statements of the 1st Defendant which can be obtained from the company secretary.

[17] The Plaintiff also could obtain the payment vouchers for the repayment sum of RM192,750.00 and therefore the 1st Defendant denies that at all material times that they committed forgery, cheating or fraud.

2nd Defendant's Defence

[18] The 2nd Defendant denies that the sum of RM 259,500.00 was a loan from the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant.

[19] The 2nd Defendant pleads that this sum was invested by him with the 1st Defendant solely without any contribution from the Plaintiff.

[20] In consideration of investing the sum RM259.500.