The Court of Appeal ruled that claims of fraud and conspiracy are not barred by res judicata and that witness immunity does not protect the creation of false evidence.

Collin Lawrence Sequerah JCA:

(A) Introduction

[1] All these appeals were heard together. After hearing parties and considering the submissions, we unanimously allowed all the appeals.

[2] The learned Chairman of the panel YA Dato' Seri Kamaluddin has since retired. My learned brother, YA Dato' Hashim Hamzah has approved the draft of this judgement.

[3] All these appeals arise out of the Orders of the Kuala Lumpur High Court dated 14 June 2022, wherein the High Court allowed the 2nd Defendant's (Respondent) application dated 1 September 2021 pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of 2012 to strike out the Appellant's/Plaintiff's suit ("Striking Out Application").

[4] The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants (Respondents) of the suit had filed similar Striking Out Applications against the Appellant's/Plaintiff's suit and the Learned High Court Judicial Commissioner (JC) having heard all four (4) Striking Out Applications together, had allowed all 4 Striking Out Applications on 14 June 2022.

[5] The resulting appeals by the Appellant/Plaintiff arising out of these striking out applications are as follows:

a) W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1194-06/2022 [2nd Defendant's Striking out Application] ("1194 Appeal");

b) W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1195-06/2022 [4th Defendant's Striking out Application] ("1195 Appeal");

c) W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1196-06/2022 [3rd and 5th Defendant's Striking Out Application] ("1996 Appeal"); and

d) W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1197-06/2022 [1st Defendant's Striking out Application] ("1197 Appeal")

[6] For ease of reference and to avoid confusion, the parties, save for the Appellant/Plaintiff, will be referred to in their respective capacities as they were in the High Court .

(B) Background Facts

[7] The Appellant/Plaintiff commenced an action against the 1st Defendant in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur vide Civil Suit No: S5-22-1333-2007 ("Suit 1333") to recover the debt pursuant to an Acknowledgment of Debt signed by the 1st Defendant.

[8] The 1st Defendant filed his Defence and Counterclaim dated 13 February 2008. In the 1st Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim to Suit 1333, he averred inter alia, the following:-

a) Disputed the debt by denying that he had signed the said Acknowledgment of Debt;

b) That if contrary to the 1st Defendant's contention it be held that he did sign the Acknowledgment of Debt, the Acknowledgment of Debt was null and void upon a failure of consideration as there was no debt and still no debt due from the 1st Defendant to the Appellant/Plaintiff;

c) That if contrary to the 1st Defendant's contention it be held that he did sign the Acknowledgment of Debt, he was induced by the Appellant/Plaintiff's representations into signing an undated acknowledgment of debt sometime in August 2006 and that he had delivered it to the Appellant/Plaintiff in escrow upon terms that it was subject to conditions precedent (which were not fulfilled);

d) That the Appellant/Plaintiff was not the absolute beneficial owner of the 271,600 shares of Euroceramic Technologies Companies Ltd (ECT). The said shares at all material times legally and beneficially belonged to the Appellant's/Plaintiff's uncle namely Yue Sau Yin ("Roger Yue");

e) That the 1st Defendant only discovered for the first time that the Appellant/Plaintiff was not