[54] The plaintiff in this case had not adduced credible evidence to demonstrate to this Court that the defendants had caused the plaintiff's other suppliers to terminate the plaintiff's distributorship rights and grant the 8th defendant those rights instead. The plaintiff was not able to prove that it had exclusive rights over any particular products. As I have indicated in the earlier portion of my judgment this Court could not rely on the evidence of PW1 as his evidence was tainted with hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible.

[55] Pertaining to the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants had approached suppliers such as PBR Automotive Pty Ltd, Baisei Corporation Sdn Bhd, Petrochem (UK), with the intention to persuade these suppliers to appoint the 8th defendant as agents for their products, these allegations remained a bare assertion. No representative from any of these suppliers was called to support the allegation. The failure