Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Enclosure 19

[1] By this enclosure, the defendant seeks the following reliefs:

(a) that the present action, namely, the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: S6-23-74-2005 ("S6 suit") and the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: S4-22-23-77-2005 ("S4 suit") be consolidated and thereafter proceed with as one suit with the S6 suit as the first suit;

(b) that the title of the S4 suit be amended by adding to it the title of the present suit;

(c) all necessary and proper directions as to the conduct and carriage of the consolidated suit be given by this Honorouble Court; and

(d) in the alternative to (a) above, that the S4 suit be transferred to the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil 6 division to be heard together with or after the determination of the S6 suit;

(e) that the costs of this application be costs in the cause; and

(f) such further and/or other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant.

[2] The primary grounds in support of the defendant's application in encl 19 are as follows:

(i) there is a similarity in the subject matter of the two suits and some of the issues that lie for determination in both the suits are also similar, consequently, it is a fit and proper case for the two suits to be consolidated and heard together;

(ii) if the S4 suit and the S6 suit are not consolidated and/or tried by the same Court as is the present circumstance, there is a possibility that a conflicting decision would be arrived at based on the same set of facts;

(iii) that the S4 suit should be consolidated with the S6 suit and/or in the alternative, the S4 suit ought to be transferred to the Kuala Lumpur, High Court Civil 6 division to be heard together with or after the determination of the S6 suit so as to enable the just, efficient and uniform determination of the similar issues existing in these two suits and to avoid conflicting decisions which may arise;

(iv) there would be a substantial saving of costs and time if the S6 suit and the S4 suit were to be consolidated and/or tried jointly or consecutively before a single Judge;

(v) the solicitors for the litigants are the same;

(vi) the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff arises out of the same action; and

(vii) as a matter of law, the provisions of O 4 r 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Rules of the High 1980 ("RHC") have been satisfied.

[3] It is the stand of the defendant that this application in encl 19 is filed without prejudice to the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff 's claim as seen in encl 6. It is quite obvious that the issues in respect of the defendant's striking out application are not relevant to the issues and the law relating to the present application for consolidation. This Judgment also emphasises the need to transfer the S4 suit to this Court and the hearing of the S4 suit after the S6 suit.

What Are The Undisputed Facts?

[4] The plaintiff in this suit is a Company known as MCAT GEN SDN BHD ("MCAT"), whilst the plaintiff s in the S4 suit are the directors of MCAT.

[5] The defendant in this suit is also named as the sole Defendant in the S4 suit.

The S6 Suit

[6] On 23 November 2005, MCAT filed its writ of summons and the statement of claim premised on a cause of action in libel. Briefly, MCAT's claim against the defendant may be stated as follows:

(a) that the defendant has defamed MCAT by virtue of the words published in the following newspaper articles and/or websites:

- an art that appeared in the New Straits Times dated 17 October 2005 entitled "Celcom denies ties with MCAT";

- an art that appeared in the New Straits Times dated 19 October 2005 entitled "Celcom maintains stand on MCAT";

- the re-publication of New Straits Times articles entitled "Celcom denies ties with MCAT" and "Celcom maintains stand on MCAT" that appeared on the New Straits Times website;

- an art appearing in Utusan Malaysia entitled "Celcom nafi ada kaitan dengan iklan MCAT";

- the re-publication of Utusan Malaysia art entitled "Celcom nafi ada kaitan dengan