The court found the applicants' disqualification request baseless as the alleged illegal fee agreement did not violate the Legal Profession Act.

(37) Unfortunately, I have discovered whilst writing this Judgment that this case was not set down for CM before me on 5 December 2013 as directed by me on 12 November 2013 for parties to update me as to the status of their compliance with the PTCM directions, which I had given on 12 November 2013;

(38) However, I am not able to state whether this slip up occurred as a result of the oversight of Puan Pavani or Puan Jamilah binti Jamil ("Puan Jamilah"), the new SAR for OCVC 7, who had taken over from Puan Pavani;

(39) What transpired thereafter based on the printouts from the CMS is that in the CM on 5 December 2013, which was conducted by Puan Jamilah, Mr SivaShankar, learned counsel, who appeared together with Cik Shara Isaacs for the 1st, 4th to the 6th plaintiffs, informed Puan Jamilah that the 1st, 4th to the 6th plaintiffs have forwarded their documents to the 2nd to the 4th defendants, the 5th defendant and the 6th defendant, who have stated that they have additional documents. Hence, he sought directions from the court as to when could the 1st, 4th to the 6th plaintiffs obtain the documents from the defendants;

(40) In response, Mr Mark La Brooy, learned counsel for the 5th defendant, said that there are actually six interlocutory applications, which have been filed, viz encls (197), (199), (201), (203), (210) and (212);

(41) Mr G K Ganeson, learned counsel for the 6th defendant, informed Puan Jamilah that the applications, which concern the 6th defendant are encls (210), (212), (201) and (197), whereas encl (203) concerns the 5th defendant and encl (199) concerns the 2nd to the 4th defendants;

(42) Mr Siva Shankar, learned counsel for the 1st, 4th to the 6th plaintiffs, then requested for a date to be fixed for the defendants to comply with the court's direction. He suggested 2-3 weeks for the defendants to furnish the documents to the solicitors of the 1st, 4th to the 6th plaintiffs;

(43) Puan Jamilah then directed the defendants to furnish the documents to the plaintiffs on or before 18 December 2013;

(44) Mr Siva Shankar, learned counsel for the 1st, 4th to the 6th plaintiffs, then sought for a CM date before me. This is because the 6th defendant intends to put all the documents in Part C, including their own documents, which will cause problems to the solicitors of the 1st, 4th to the 6th plaintiffs;

(45) Puan Jamilah granted his request and she fixed a date for CM before me on 20 December 2013. She also said that she will inform the parties by letter if there is any change in the situation;

(46) The 6th defendant's learned counsel then requested for a date to be fixed for the hearing of the six interlocutory applications;

(47) Puan Jamilah then suggested to the parties that she would fix the CM before me on 20 December 2013 first and see the outcome before giving dates for the hearing of the six interlocutory applications. This is because on 20 December 2013, the parties will update the court on the progress of the case and from there dates for the hearing of the six interlocutory applications could be fixed and this was agreed to by all the parties;

(48) Subsequently, all of the six interlocutory applications were fixed for hearing before me on 15 January 2014;

(49) On 15 January 2014, the six interlocutory applications, viz encls (197), (199), (201), (203), (210) and (212), were called up before me for hearing;

(50) Enclosure (210) is the 6th defendant's ex abundanti cautela (from the excess of caution) application for leave to file and serve a notice of demand under O 16 r 8(1)(a) of the ROC 2012 to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants out of time and for the 6th defendant to be given liberty to file an amended claim for contribution against the 1st, 4th to the 6th plaintiffs within 14 days from the date of service of the sealed copy of the Order of court;

(51) Enclosure (212) is the 6th defendant's