Kamalanathan Ratnam JC:

[1] The plaintiffs, husband and wife, had a controlling interest in two companies, namely PN Consolidated Sdn Bhd and Metroknit Sdn Bhd (hereinafter called 'the group'). The 1st defendant was at all material times the 1st plaintiff's personal assistant and was also the security manager of the group. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and together were the only shareholders of the 3rd defendant. The 4th and 5th defendants were at all material times the only directors of another company called Weatherwell Corporation Sdn Bhd ('Weatherwell'). The 6th and 7th defendants were directors of and the agents or servants of the 8th defendant. The 9th defendant, being designers and traders in fashion garments was controlled by the 6th and 7th defendants who were its substantial shareholders. The 10th and 11th defendants are companies incorporated in Malaysia. The 1st to 3rd defendants were represented by one Counsel whilst the 4th to 11th defendants were collectively represented by another.

[2] The 4th to the 11th defendants filed their defence on 10 January 1996, but before delivering defence, by a letter dated 27 December 1995 they applied for further and better particulars of some of the matters alleged in the statement of claim. On 22 January 1996, the plaintiffs filed an answer to the request for further and better particulars of the statement of claim. Therefore, the issue of whether particulars would be ordered before the defendants deliver their defence does not arise here. Being dissatisfied with one of the answers provided, the 4th to 11th defendants took out a summons in chambers (encl 15) pursuant to O 18 r 12(3) of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC). The particulars sought were as follows:

1) Bahawa plaintif-plaintif, dalam masa tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh perintah ini, menyampaikan butir-butir berkenaan dengan penyalahgunaan, pecah amanah ke atas wang dan/atau lain-lain aset beberapa buah syarikat dalam kumpulan itu seperti yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 13.25 pernyataan tuntutan dalam ini kepada defendan ke-empat hingga ke-sebelas dengan menyatakan butir-butir penyalahgunaan dan/atau pecah amanah seperti yang diperkatakan, tarikh dan tempat di mana penggelapan dan/atau pecah amanah seperti yang diperkatakan itu dilakukan, menyatakan butir-butir wang dan lain-lain aset yang dipersoalkan dan menyatakan butir-butir beberapa buah syarikat yang dipersoalkan;

2) Bahawa jikalau plaintif-plaintif gagal menepati perintah untuk perenggan 1 di atas, dengan gagal menyampaikan butir-butir selanjutnya dan lebih baik seperti yang diperintahkan, perenggan 13.25 pernyataan tuntutan dibatalkan; dan

3) Bahawa kos untuk permohonan ini dikoskan dalam kausa.

[3] Paragraph 13.25 of the statement of claim referred to in encl 15 above states as follows:

From the time the 1st defendant and his co-conspirators had wrested control of the group from the plaintiffs, they and in particular the 1st and/or the 4th and/ or the 5th defendants have misappropriated and/or committed breach of trust of moneys and other assets of various companies in the group in particular of Weatherwell, Shirtmakers and Country Road;

[4] The application for further and better particulars as embodied in the 4th to 11th defendants letter was as follows:

... particulars of the misappropriation, alleged breach of trust and assets of various companies in the group, stating the details of misappropriation, the date on which and the place at which the alleged breach of trust has been committed, stating the details of the other assets in question.

[5] The plaintiffs' solicitor's reply with which the 4th to 11th defendants were dissatisfied with is as follows:

The particulars sought are within the knowledge of the defendants and the plaintiffs will seek discovery of the same at the appropriate time.

[6] In support of his request for the said particulars Mr Ling for the 4th to 11th defendants referred me to Lim Kee Tiak v. Lim Kee Tian, [1987] 2 MLJ 52