The court held that without concrete evidence proving conspiracy and an agreement among defendants, the claim was dismissed, emphasizing the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof.

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is for conspiracy in inducing a company called Del Sol Offshore Sdn Bhd ("Del Sol") to breach its contract of payment to the plaintiff.

[2] The case proceeded to a full trial where both sides relied on the agreed statement of facts, issues to be tried, Bundle of Documents and oral evidence of witnesses.

Brief Facts

[3] The undisputed fact is that the plaintiff was awarded a subcontract by Del Sol which was the main contractor of a Petronas project in 2018. The subcontract was for supply of diving equipment as well as manpower for a part of the project.

[4] The plaintiff completed its scope of work on around 3rd of May 2019 and the plaintiff invoiced Del Sol for the payment of the same which amounted, after giving a credit note, to USD 1,908,232.64.

[5] Part of the payment was paid leaving a balance of USD 1,399.758. unpaid by Del Sol. Del Sol was ultimately wound up on 17 August 2021. However, the plaintiff alleges that before being wound up, Del Sol was paid by Petronas which included the sum owed to the plaintiff.

[6] The plaintiff further alleges that instead of making payment to the plaintiff, the defendants had conspired to transfer the sum of money owing to the plaintiff to the 4th defendant in which they were also directors. Thus, this suit of conspiracy against the defendants for inducing the breach by Del Sol.

[7] The defendants denied the conspiracy as they had resigned as directors in 2019 much before the purported payment by Petronas. Their shares in Del Sol had been sold to a 3rd party who is now responsible for the affairs of Del Sol.

[8] Any help rendered by any one of the defendants to the plaintiff was merely to assist the plaintiff who was hard pressed to recover the money owed.

Burden of Proof

[9] In this case the burden of proof clearly lies upon the plaintiff to prove conspiracy as is stipulated in the various provisions of the Evidence Act 1950 .

Section 101

1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed.

A must prove that B has committed the crime.

(b) A desires a court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies to be true.

A must prove the existence of those facts.

Section 102

The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father.

If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to his possession.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on A.

(b) A sues B for money due on a bond.

The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies.

If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on B.

Section 103

The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admiss