Introduction

This is an application by the defendants in enclosure 43 to have this suit - the D4 suit, to be consolidated with the D5 suit bearing number D5-22-396-2002 and thereafter transferred to the D5 court pursuant to Order 4 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC") and under the inherent jurisdiction of this court.

In enclosure 43, the defendants have prayed for, inter alia, the following orders:

(i) that this suit (referring to the "D4 suit") be consolidated with the D5 suit (referring to the suit bearing number D5-22-396-2002) and thereafter be carried on concurrently;

(ii) that the title to the D5 suit (referring to the suit bearing number D5-22-396-2002) be amended by adding it to the title of the D4 suit; and

(iii) that the costs of and incidental to this application be costs in the cause.

What is the purpose of consolidation?

It is to save time and costs and is usually ordered when there appears to the court that there is "some common question of law or fact bearing sufficient importance in proportion to the rest" of the subject-matter of the actions so as "to render it desirable that the whole should be disposed of at the same time" (Payne v. British Time Recorder Co. (1921) 2 K.B.1; Horwood v. British Statesman Publishing Co. Ltd (1929) W.N. 38; and Daws v. Daily Sketch (1960) 1 WLR 126, (1960) 1 All ER 397, C.A.). It seems that saving time and costs is of the most importance (Del E Webb International Hotel Co v. Hotel Merlin (Penang) Sdn Bhd (1973) 1 MLJ 31). Consolidation may be ordered by the court where the parties in the actions are the same or different persons. The court will not hesitate to consolidate where the plaintiffs are the same and the defendants are also the same or even where the plaintiffs or the defendants or all of them are different (Horwood v. British Statesman Publishing Co. Ltd (supra)). Even actions against the same defendant, for instance, one in regard to the damages sustained before or at the date of the writ, and the other in regard to the damages sustained subsequently and thereafter, may be ordered to be consolidated (Martin v. Martin (1897) 1 QB 429). It is pertinent to note that no order for consolidation will ever be made by the court unless all the parties affected have been heard (Daws v. Daily Sketch (supra)). In a situation where embarrassment at the trial may be caused, consolidation may be refused. An embarrassment may occur where the actions are filed by different plaintiffs based on the same libel and the defences are differently taken by the defendants. Of pertinence would be this. What has been consolidated may be deconsolidated as reflected in the case of Lewis v. Daily Telegraph (No: 2) (1964) 2 QB 601, C.A.

So where the plaintiffs in the various actions are unable to agree on a common representation by a single firm of solicitors, consolidation may be refused (Lewis v. Daily Telegraph (supra) at page 623). Everything would be dependent on the court. The court is given a wide discretion nay untrammelled in its effect to make an order of consolidation even though such an order may give the applicant an advantage in regard to the issue of the limitation period (Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No: 4) (1992) 2 All ER 860 at 864).

Apart from Order 4 of the RHC, consolidation may also be made under Order 15, rule 4 of the RHC where the parties could be joined thereunder (Central Securities (Holdings) Bhd v. Haron bin Mohamed Zaid (1979) 2 MLJ 244, F.C.).

Transfer of proceedings

Reference should be made to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) especially to the Schedule thereto and it must be read with Order 4 of the RHC as well as with the inherent jurisdiction of this court. Within the realm of the additional powers of the High Court as envisaged in the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91), the High Court is certainly empowered:

"..... to transfer any proceedings to any other court or to or from any subordinate court, and in t