[31] On this, we find that the learned judge had failed to consider that the 6th defendant was in fact related to the 2nd defendant, the Managing Director of the 1st defendant, that he had office space in the 1st defendant's showroom, and that he was referred to as the "current manager" of the 1st defendant, that "he is the right person to talk to because he is the influential one and the person that can assist us in importing cars". These seemingly innocuous factors were relevant and indicative of the role played by the 6th defendant in relation to the 1st defendant; that he was, in truth, and in reality, not a "mere broker who introduced potential buyers for cars sold by the 1st defendant" but someone who had a fairly substantial role to play in the 1st defendant. It is highly unlikely that such a "mere broker", as described by the 2nd defendant, would have been given the mandates and degree of authorisation to act on behalf of the 1st defendant as the 6th defendant did.

[32] Although the 6th defendant was a b