Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

On 13 June 2003, I granted, on the application of the plaintiffs by way of an ex partesummons in chambers as reflected in encl. 3, an ex parteinjunction in favour of the plaintiffs with the usual undertaking as to damages. That ex parteinjunction was against the defendant and it was couched in this manner (see the order in encl. 7):

(a) the Defendant be restrained whether by itself, its agents or howsoever from selling, transferring or otherwise dealing with all or any of the 62,562,500 ordinary shares in Sitt Tatt Berhad, free of moratorium, registered in the name of the Defendant save and except in accordance with the Agreements dated 12.9.2001 and 12.9.2002 entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

(b) the Defendant be restrained whether by itself, its agents, servants or howsoever from acting in any manner inconsistent with the express/implied terms of the said Agreements and be further restrained from altering or changing the structure or composition of the Board of Directors of Sitt Tatt Berhad.

(c) The inter parteshearing be fixed for 2nd July, 2003.

Dated this 13th day of June, 2003.

On 2 July 2003, the inter parteshearing was heard. But before it got off the ground, Mr. Wong Chong Wah, the learned counsel for the defendant raised a preliminary objection. It was framed and phrased in this way. He objected to Mr. Wang Koo Shing ("Mr. Wang") and Mr. Woo Kai Hung ("Mr. Woo") appearing for the second plaintiff for the following reasons:

(a) that both the plaintiffs were represented by one firm of solicitors, namely, Messrs Shook Lin & Bok but Mr. Wang and Mr. Woo were not from that law firm; and

(b) that where there are several plaintiffs, the law is said to be clear in that they can only be represented by one firm of solicitors and by the same counsel except with the leave of court in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Wong Chong Wah ("Mr. Wong") was quite perturbed that the second plaintiff was represented by Mr. Wang and Mr. Woo. Mr. Wong"s concern was motivated by the fact that on 13 June 2003 when I granted the ex parte injunction, both the plaintiffs were represented by Dato" Dr. Cyrus V. Das and Mr. K. Mohan who were from the law firm of Messrs. Shook Lin & Bok. Mr. Wong must have expected that these two learned counsel in the persons of Dato" Dr. Cyrus V. Das and Mr. K. Mohan from the law firm of Messrs. Shook Lin & Bok would be representing both the plaintiffs on 2 July 2003. But, alas, events showed that on 2 July 2003, only the first plaintiff was represented by Dato" Dr. Cyrus V. Das who was assisted by Mr. K. Mohan and Mr. Brian Jit Singh and they were from the law firm of Messrs. Shook Lin & Bok. While both Mr. Wang and Mr. Woo represented the second plaintiff on 2 July 2003. Both the plaintiffs still retained the services of the law firm of Messrs. Shook Lin & Bok.

No notice of the preliminary objection was ever given to either the first plaintiff or the second plaintiff. Yet the parties were willing to argue the preliminary objection before me. I listened to them attentively and I too wrote copiously.

The Preliminary Objection

Mr. Wong referred to me a passage appearing in the White Book. It was a faxed copy and under caption of, "Joinder of plaintiffs without leave", and he referred to me this passage:

If persons are joined as plaintiffs in the proceedings, they are not entitled, as a general rule, to separate legal representation: Lewis v. Daily Telegraph[1964] 2 QB 601. See also The Bosworth [1961] 1 WLR 312.

Mr. Wong also referred to me the case of Lewis And Another v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (No. 2)[1964] 2 QB 601, CA. That was a decision emanating from the Court of Appeal with a coram comprising of Sellers, Pearson and Russell LJJ and Mr. Wong referred to me a passage that appeared at p. 619 of the report which reads:

In my view, it was not regular, and not in accordance with the proper practice, that two firms of solicitors should be placed on the reco