A principal is liable for losses arising from transactions conducted by their designated agent, even if the agent acts improperly without the principal's knowledge.

1. By consent of parties Suit Nos. D-22NCC-560-2010, D-22NCC-561-2010, D-22NCC-562-2010, D-22NCC-563-2010, D-22NCC-564-2010, D-22NCC-565-2010, D-22NCC-566-2010, D-22NCC-567-2010 and D-22NCC-568-2010 were heard one immediately after another.

2. There was no application made under Order 4 of the Rules of the High 1980 for a consolidation of the cases.

3. Counsel D. Bhaskaran and Denise Tan acted for the Plaintiff in all 9 suits and Counsel D. Paramalingam acted for all the 9 Defendants.

4. At the commencement of the trial in Suit No D-22NCC-560-2010, Counsel for the Plaintiff informed the Court that he would be calling as his first witness Chong Wai Mun, Manager of Bursa Malaysia Depository Sdn Bhd. And that in order to avoid calling Chong Wai Mun repeatedly in all the other suits, his evidence would be referred to and adopted as evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff in the other 8 Suits. Counsel for the Defendant agreed to this arrangement.

5. In this suit, Counsel for the Plaintiff called Chan Kim Hing (PW1), Executive Director and Head of Operations of the Plaintiff as his witness. The written witness statement of Chan Kim Hing was marked as PW1S.

6. Chan Kim Hing (PW1) was called as the only witness in the other 8 Suits respectively.

7. It was also agreed between parties that Counsel for the Defendant would cross-examine Chan Kim Hing extensively in Suit No. D-22NCC-560-2010 only and that he would not repeat his detailed cross-examination in the subsequent suits save for specific issues pertaining to them.

8. Save for the Defendant in Suit No. D-22NCC-560-2010 who elected not to be present at the trial to give evidence on his own behalf, all the other 8 Defendants gave their evidence respectively.

9. The Plaintiff's Case

9.1. The Plaintiff is a stock-broking firm and at all material times was a Participating Organisation of Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd (Bursa Malaysia).

9.2. The Defendant was at all material times a client of the Plaintiff having opened 2 trading accounts namely, an Individual Trading Account and a Day Contra Trading Account both on 6/6/07.

9.3. The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff all sums due and owing from time to time arising from share transactions carried out on the Defendant's accounts, together with interest.

9.4. The Commissioned Dealer's Representative (CDR) or Remiscier, acting for the Defendant in the 2 accounts was one Pneh Tee Eong (Pneh). The Defendant transacted trades through Pneh on his Individual Trading Account from 7/6/07 to 28/7/07.

9.5. Due to the contra loses sustained by the Defendant in the Individual Trading Account, the Plaintiff by letters dated 13/7/07 and 6/12/07 demanded payment and warned the Defendant that if he failed to settle his losses, the Plaintiff would submit his name as a defaulter to Bursa Malaysia.

9.6. By letter dated 28/8/07, due to the Defendant's non payment he was reported by the Plaintiff to Bursa Malaysia to be posted as a defaulter.

9.7. Due to the Defendant's failure to pay the sums claimed, the Plaintiff force sold the Defendant's shares on the Accounts. As at 24/7/07, the Defendant still owed the Plaintiff the sum of RM327,067.99 together with interest thereon under the Individual Trading Account.

10. The Defendant's Case

10.1. The Defendant admitted opening a Trading Account and a Day Contra Trading Account with the Plaintiff but denied the Plaintiff's claim wholly and relied on the following defences, namely:-

a) Pneh, the CDR/Remiscier was appointed and authorized by the Plaintiff to conduct all transactions on the 2 Accounts and that Pneh had acted wrongfully in collusion with the Plaintiff.

b) the Defendant had no knowledge a