(Enc. 147/348, 355, 339, 340, 344, 349, 350, 351, 352, 343 and 356)

Tan Sri Dato' Tajuddin Ramli (TR) is the Defendant in the original action but Plaintiff in the Counter-claim. TR originally commenced the Counter-claim only against 24 Defendants. Thereafter by Enc. 147, TR sought to re-amend certain paragraphs of his amended Counter-claim and join another 14 Defendants to his earlier amended Counter-claim. The primary basis for the amendment is that the alleged conspiracy by the initial 24 Defendants is, in fact, not limited to them but extends to the new Defendants. With reference to paragraphs 134 (148) of the amended Counter-claim, TR contends that the new Defendants are essentially the office bearers of the companies against whom conspiracy charges have already been leveled in the amended Counter-claim.

The justification for the application to re-amend according to the supporting affidavit affirmed by TR is that the presence of these additional Defendants is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute involving the existing Defendants and the Defendants to be added by this amendment, can be effectively and completely determined and adjudicated simultaneously by this Court. With reference to the identity of the 14 new Defendants, TR states in paragraph 3 (i) of his supporting affidavit 'I have identified persons who may have been or were parties to the conspiracy and is therefore proper and necessary to add some of these.... as Defendants to my Counter-Claim '. TR then proceeds to identify the 14 new Defendants. The existing 24 Defendants (other than 7th Defendant) vigorously oppose TR's application to further re-amend his Counter-Claim. The Defendants other than the 7th Defendant filed applications to strike out the Counter-Claim under O. 18 r. 19 (b) (c) and (d). The applications to strike out were dismissed before the Registrar, leading to the filing of these enclosures by way of appeal.

The amendments are being resisted on numerous grounds including delay, lack of good faith and that the amendments are outside the scope of O. 15 r. 3 (1) of the RHC 1980 because the parties sought to be added have no material connection with the subject matter of the Plaintiffs' original claim. I originally fixed the appeal against the decision of the learned Registrar allowing the amendment on a date before the disposal of the appeal relating to the refusal of the learned Registrar to strike out the Counter-claim. However, after an examination of the decision of this Court in Cynthia Gloria Locus v. Micro Consolidation Sdn. Bhd [2007] 8 CLJ 554, I was of the view that I should determine the appeals against the refusal of the learned Registrar to strike out TR's Counter-claim, first. Hence, my decision to deliver my decision on the striking out appeal first.

The late Vincent Ng J in Cynthia Gloria Louis after holding the absence of 'good faith' to be a ground for refusing leave to amend, proceeded then to examine at length the questions that a Court of Law should asks itself when determining the presence or absence of good faith. His Lordship opined that one question that the Court must always asks itself is whether the application is genuine or, what lies behind the application? For example, the amendment must not be dishonest, not intended to overreach the opposite party or made for any other ulterior motive. The amendment must be based on facts which are substantially true and germane to the matters in the controversy between the parties. His Lordship concluded by adopting the pronouncements of Collins M.R in McManus v. Fortescue [1907] 2 KB 1 at 5, that amendments should be refused if they do not carry the Plaintiff's case any further. In other words, in all cases where the Plaintiff's claim as originally framed is unsupportable, then, an amendment which would leave the claim equally unsupportable would not be allowed.

I have earlier this morning allowed the application by the Defendants to strike out TR's Counte