Abdul Hamid J:

There are two applications before this Court, (a) that of the ninth defendant for an order that the plaintiff's action against him be struck out, and (b) by the second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants for an order that the plaintiffs claim against them in para. 2 of the amended statement of claim and on the indorsement of claim in the writ of summons for damages for conspiracy to publish a defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff be struck out.

In these applications there is a common prayer that the particulars filed in reply to the defence of the second to ninth defendants be struck out.

I shall first of all deal with the ninth defendant's application. In the affidavit supporting the application it is alleged that the plaintiff was not acting bona fide in instituting the suit and that this was part of a scheme to malign or bring to disrepute the former directors and committee and General Manager of the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange Berhad (I shall hereafter call "the KLSE (B)"). it is said that the plaintiff defamed the committee and staff of the Stock Exchange in an article called "Self Regulation and a Stock Exchange" and this article was given to the New Straits Times and they published a condensed version in the Business Times section of 30 November 1974.. The publication in the New Straits Times led the Singapore Investor to publish a commentary in its issue on 2 December 1974 stating that the KLSE (B) and its staff were corrupt. It is also alleged that the plaintiff then Research and Publication Manager of the KLSE (B) attempted to publish the article in the KLSE (B) monthly gazette. The committee stopped her from doing so and took over the work of publishing and printing the gazette. In consequence the plaintiff took out this suit with a view to further malign the committee and the applicant. It is further alleged that the particulars in the reply are irrelevant, scandalous, prolix, vexatious and an abuse of the powers of the Court. It is contended that this was a further step in the plaintiff's campaign to injure the defendants. The particulars were served on the applicant's solicitors Messrs Ng Ek Teong & Partners at 4.00 pm on 13 and on 15 June 1975 and 1975 a full and detailed report appeared in the New Straits Times.

As a result of this publication the A-G is reported to have stated in the New Straits Times issue of 24 June 1975 that the allegations ought to be investigated by the National Bureau of Investigation It is also revealed that subsequent copies of the publication were delivered to most of the stockbroker firms in West Malaysia. The applicant contends that the pleadings in this suit are being deliberately used as a vehicle for defaming the defendants and are patently part of a scheme to malign.

The application is made pursuant to O. 19 r. 27 RSC which reads -

The Court or a Judge may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any indorsement or pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action; and O. 25 r. 4 which allows the Court or a Judge to order

any pleading to be struck out, on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer, and in any such case or in case of the action or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the Court or a Judge may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be entered accordingly, as may be just.

Mr. Ng Ek Teong Counsel for the ninth defendant submitted that the pleadings were so confused that they ought to be struck out or substantially amended. He pointed out that the statement of claim contains a combination of allegation of conspiracy to defame and libel. It is the applicant's contention that it is not open to the plaintiff in her claim for libel against the second to ninth defendants to plead "conspire to defame" and "to defame" in on