Plaintiff failed to demonstrate prima facie evidence of fraud or conspiracy, reinforcing the principle that burden of proof lies on the claimant.

[1] This is an action by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for various declarations, damages, injunction, etc based on breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, interference with contract to induce breach, negligence and related reliefs. The chronology of events in this proceeding leading to the trial as enumerated in the submission of Defendants 2) and 3) is reproduced below for convenience:

(a) That the Plaintiff commenced its action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants on 10 October 2008;

(b) That the Plaintiff on/about 04 November 2008 amended its Writ of Summons to add the 2nd and 3rd Defendants;

(c) That on/about 14 April 2009, all disputes between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff was referred to arbitration proceeding; and

(d) That the Plaintiff appealed against the said order where the Court of Appeal affirmed said order and dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal.

Agreed Facts

[2] A brief summary of agreed facts is set out in Defendant 4)'s submission is as follows:

"The Plaintiff had been appointed by the 1st Defendant as its Turnkey Contractor to design, construct and complete a Retail Commercial Complex with Residential Apartments on Lot 42095 (PT 3114), Mukim Petaling, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan upon the terms and conditions contained in the contract documents in Exhibit "P6".

The 1st Defendant had engaged its own consultants to carry out and manage the said Development Project, the consultants are:-

(a) Project Manager - For the Future Project Management Sdn Bhd;

(b) M & E Checker - Jurutera Perunding Urus Jaya Sdn Bhd;

(c) Architect - AEON Architect;

(d) Civil & Structural Engineer - Singma Jurutera Perunding;

(e) Quantity Surveyor - Jurutera Kosrancang Sdn Bhd; and

(f) Employer's Representative (ER) - Lee Beng Cheong

Disputes and differences arose between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant in connection with works and/or the building contract and the said disputes and differences have been referred to Arbitration for settlement."

Plaintiff's Case Against Defendants 2) To 4) ('D2, D3 And D4)

[3] Plaintiff's claim against D2 and D3 comprised the following causes of action:

(1) Tort of procuring breach of contract

(2) Tort of unlawful interference with contract

(3) Conspiracy

(4) Fraud

(5) Improper and undervaluation of Plaintiff's work under the turnkey contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1) ('D1').

[4] At the close of the Plaintiff's case, D2 and D3 submitted that no case to answer had been made out against them on the pleaded claim.

[5] In respect of Defendant 4) ['D4'] the Plaintiff's summary of case states that its cause of action against D4 is founded on the contention that D4, on instructions of D2 and D3, valued the works carried out by the Plaintiff in a sum way below the value of the works completed by the Plaintiff thereby breaching its duty of care to the Plaintiff. The D2, D3 and D4 are alleged to have acted together in conspiracy and fraudulently as particularised in its Statement of Claim ('SOC').

[6] In the SOC, the Plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs against D4:

(i) The value of the works carried out by the Plaintiff which as of 29 May 2007 amounts to RM30,427,302.21 together with a turnkey factor of 15% on the said sum and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the sum of RM427,302.21 and all sum above RM30 million;

(ii) Damages for conspiracy, fraud, negligence and causing Plaintiff's economic loss;

(iii) General and aggravated damages be assessed;

(iv) Interest on all such damages as may be awarded to Plaintiff;

(v) Costs.

[7] Out of the voluminous SOC consistin