The plaintiff failed to prove allegations of breach of confidentiality, good faith, and conspiracy, lacking concrete evidence, rendering the claims speculative.

[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 to call one Mr David Ng and Mr Phil Mason mentioned by PW1 in his cross-examination (see Q and A 134 to 142 and Q and A 26 to 31, 130, 172 to 175, 176 to 178 dated 17 February 2011) to corroborate PW1's evidence would definitely attract the presumption of adverse inference pursuant to the provision of s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 . As the evidence of PW1 remained inadmissible in this Court there is nothing before this Court to prove the plaintiff's allegation against the defendants (s 60 of the ; Juahir Sadikon v. Perbadanan Kemajuan Ekonomi Negeri Johor, [1996] 3 MLJ 627).

False Allegation That The Plaintiff Was No Longer In The Automotive Parts Business

[56] The plaintiff alleged that the 1st defendant to the 7th defendants had made false statements and spreading words that the plaintiff was no longer active in the automotive business but had instead diverted its business to gaming. According to PW1, PW6 and PW8 they were informed by their customers that the 1st to 7th defendants had told them this. However the plaintiff made no attempts to call its customers who were its material witnesses to support its claim.

[57] The plaintiff's own witness (PW7) who had also attested a prepared SD at the request of the PW1 had also said during his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants (see evidence of PW7 dated 28 February 2011 during cross-examination Q and A 34 and 35) that the 1st defendant did not tell him that the plaintiff was no longer dealing with the automotive parts business. However the 1st defendant had told him that he had left the plaintiff and now he was dealing with the automotive parts business. PW7 further told this Court that it was common knowledge that the plaintiff was diverting its business and focusing on the gaming industry and that it was in the news. This was supported by the Annual Reports of Repco Holding Berhad (exh "P18"), a parent company of the plaintiff which disclosed that the plaintiff was moving from its automotive parts business to gaming and timber industry (see cross-examination of PW1 dated 16 February 2011, Q and Q A 166 to 169).

[58] The plaintiff's claim that the 1st to 8th defendants had caused words to be circulated to the effect that the plaintiff was no longer dealing with automotive parts business remained a bare assertion. Further it was also disclosed during trial that after the 1st to 7th defendants resigned and/ or retired from the plaintiff, the plaintiff was under the new management headed by one Mr David Ling who would be in a better position to elaborate on the plaintiff's main focus of business at that material time. The plaintiff opted not to call this crucial witness to support the assertion.

Allegations Of Conspiracy To Injure

[59] The allegations of