Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

This was the joint application by way of a summons in chambers in encl. 50 of the first, third and fourth defendants ("individual defendants") and the eighth and ninth defendants ("subject companies") for early trial dates for the disposal of the action herein. That encl. 50 was worded in this way:

(1) that early trial dates be fixed for the disposal of the action herein;

(2) that the costs of and occasioned by this application be costs in the cause; and

(3) that such further or other orders or directions be made or given as this Honourable Court deems fit and just in the circumstances.

From henceforth, the individual defendants and the subject companies shall be referred to as the "defendants".

In support of encl. 50, the defendants relied on the affidavits of Siew Choon Wah that were affirmed on 27 December 2001, 22 January 2002 and 18 February 2002 as reflected in encls. 49, 55 and 58 respectively. The plaintiff vehemently opposed encl. 50 and the plaintiff relied on the affidavits of Yeow Ewe Chuan that were affirmed on 10 January 2002, 4 February 2002 and 4 March 2002 as seen in encls. 54, 56 and 59 respectively.

The defendants were fortunate. Their application in encl. 50 was supported by the second, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants - hereinafter referred to as "the other defendants". The defendants have, incidentally, given notice of encl. 50 to the other defendants.

The Chronology Of Events

The defendants were concerned with the delay in obtaining the trial dates. The interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff must have been stifling. But interlocutory applications continue to be filed by the legal practitioners in our courts on a daily basis and the courts continue to adjudicate on them. Indeed the importance of interlocutory applications can never be denied and I too had said that in Sambu (M) Sdn Bhd v. Stone World Sdn Bhd & Anor[1997] 1 CLJ 775at pp. 781-782:

This case demonstrates, once again, the agility of counsel to manoeuvre through the RHC in order to obtain the desired result. Interlocutory applications are varied and manifold in our courts. These interlocutory applications, though at times stifling, yet they are necessary evils. They serve to warn the opposing party of the need to be vigilant and not caught off guard. They serve as an intellectual outlet for the agile and the robust. The converse would be true. Those caught off guard would pay dearly for their folly. For the Courts, these interlocutory applications would continue to play dominant roles for a long time to come. Indeed interlocutory applications are invariably necessary in order to deal with the rights of the parties in the interim period between the commencement of the proceedings and their final determination. These interlocutory applications would move the courts to grant such interim reliefs or remedies as may be just or convenient. These reliefs or remedies are designed to achieve one or more of several objectives, for instance, to maintain the status quo ante, to prevent hardship or prejudice to one or other of the parties, to preserve a fair equilibrium between the parties and at the same time to give them due protection while awaiting the final outcome of the proceedings, and last but by no means least, to prevent any abuse of process during the interim period.

It would certainly be useful to list out the chronology of events in order to ascertain the concerns of the defendants in wanting early trial dates to be fixed for this action. The chronology of events are as follows:

Date Event

17.5.2001 Writ and Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff.

5.7.2001 Memorandum of Appearance filed and served by the 1st, 3rd, 4th ('Individual Defendants'), 8th and 9th Defendants ('Subject Companies').

26.7.2001 Individual Defendants' and Subject Companies' Defence filed and served.

9.8.2001 Plaintiff's Reply to Individual Defendants' and Subject Companies' Defence filed and served.

23.8.2001 Int