Claims for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty were struck out due to res judicata, lack of standing, and prematurity due to ongoing litigation.

[1] This Judgment is in respect of the following applications:

(i) Enclosure 22 - the Plaintiff's application for various injunctive reliefs.

(ii) Enclosure 18 - the 9th to 18th Defendants' application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim.

(iii) Enclosure 38 - the 6th and 8th Defendants' application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim.

(iv) Enclosure 39 - the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants' application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim.

(v) Enclosure 40 - the 5th and 7th Defendants' application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim.

(vi) Enclosure 48 - the 3rd and 19th Defendants application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim.

(Collectively "The Applications")

[2] Enclosures 18, 38, 39, 40 and 48 shall collectively be referred to as the "Defendants' Application" and encl 22 as the "Plaintiff's Application".

[3] The Applications were heard and decided together given that the Plaintiff's Application and the Defendants' Application are interrelated and the decision of one will inevitably affect the other. This is because, in the Plaintiff's Application, the Plaintiff was required to demonstrate to the Court that there were serious questions to be tried ( American Cyanamid Co v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396), whereas the Defendants, in the Defendants' Application, had to show the Court that the Plaintiff's claim was obviously unsustainable (Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor 2016 MarsdenLR 1269 ; [2016] 3 MLJ 1 ; ; [2016] 2 AMR 795 ).

[4] In the present case, I found that the Plaintiff's claim was obviously unsustainable and, therefore, allowed the Defendants' Application and dismissed the Plaintiff's Application, for the reasons set out below.

[A] Background

[5] The roles of each party and their connection to the Plaintiff's case are as stated below.

[6] The Plaintiff (Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow) is the son the 2nd Plaintiff. The 2nd to 4th Defendants are his siblings. The Plaintiff is asserting his beneficial ownership and interests in several companies forming the RMDC Group (consisting of the 9th to 18th Defendants). He claims that his shares and positions as a director were unlawfully diluted, transferred or vacated as part of a conspiracy involving the Defendants.

[7] The 1st Defendant (Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah), the father of the Plaintiff, is alleged to have played a primary role in the alleged conspiracy. The Plaintiff claims that the 1st Defendant is the trustee of the Plaintiff's shares and that he had breached his fiduciary duties by orchestrating the dilution and transfer of the Plaintiff's interests in the RMDC Group.

[8] The 2nd Defendant (Linda Kam Thai Eng) is the eldest daughter of the 1st Defendant and the 3rd Defendant (Edward Kam Tai Keong) is the son of the1st Defendant. The Plaintiff claims that they both conspired with their father (the 1st Defendant) and others to dilute the Plaintiff's interests. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are alleged to have benefitted from the allocation of shares from the RMDC Group during the disputed transactions

[9] The 4th Defendant (Dennis Kam Thai Leong) is the youngest son of the 1st Defendant. The 4th Defendant is implicated as a beneficiary of the disputed transactions and accused of knowingly receiving unlawfully transferred shares.

[10] The 5th Defendant (Chew Tee Beng) is a director and manager in the RMDC Group. The 5th Defendant is alleged to have assisted in the improper execution of several actions t