JUDGMENT

Gan Techiong JC:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff has filed this action, by way of a writ of summons, against four defendants in December 2024. The 4th Defendant is an advocate & solicitor. Some four months later in April 2025, the Plaintiff filed an application pursuant to O 15 r 6 Rules of 2012 for leave to add two advocates & solicitors, who are partners of the same law firm as the 4th Defendant, as the 5th Defendant and 6th Defendant respectively. The existing defendants objected to the Plaintiff's application.

[2] After reading the cause papers and hearing submissions of counsel, I decided that this Court ought to exercise its discretion to allow the Plaintiff's said application to add Kursiah Sharmini binti Hassan as the 5th Defendant and Solahuddin bin Zainal Ariffin as the 6th Defendant. They are both partners of the existing 4th Defendant practising law under the name of Messrs. Sulaimi, Sharmini & Partners.

The Plaintiff's Submissions

[3] The Plaintiff adduced as evidence a letter dated 2 February 2024 issued by the Bar Council which confirms that the proposed defendants are partners of the same law firm as the 4th Defendant, ie Messrs. Sulaimi, Sharmini & Partners.

[4] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted at length on the authorities applicable to applications for joinder of parties. As I have decided that this Court ought to exercise its discretion to allow the Plaintiff's said application to add the two partners of the 4th Defendant as defendants, I shall focus on the points raised by the Defendants in their affidavits and their learned counsel's submissions, and discuss at greater length the objections raised by the Defendants.

The Defendants' Submissions

[5] As mentioned above, the Plaintiff's said application to add the two new defendants was opposed by the Defendants.

[6] It was submitted by the Defendants that all communication and transactions were with only the 4th Defendant (Sarina Jusoh) and that neither the proposed 5th Defendant (Kursiah Sharmini) nor the proposed 6th Defendant (Solahuddin) had dealt with the Plaintiff in the past.

[7] It was further argued that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants appointed only the 4th Defendant to act for them and had no intention to appoint the proposed 5th Defendant or proposed 6th Defendant.

[8] As a point of law, it was submitted by learned counsel for the Defendants that the 4th Defendant, the proposed 5th Defendant and the proposed 6th Defendants did not agree to jointly bear liability, and that there was no partnership agreement between them that imposes joint responsibility.

[9] Lastly, it was submitted that the 4th Defendant, the proposed 5th Defendant and the proposed 6th Defendant were practising as partners but from different locations, ie at different branches of the said law firm. In essence, the Defendants are contending that partners of the same firm who manage different branches of the firm are not liable for the conduct of their partners in other branches.

Analysis Of The Facts And Law

[10] It is trite that the Court has a discretion to add parties at any stage to ensure complete determination of the issues between them. This discretionary power is set out in O 15 r 6(2)(b) Rules of 2012. Order 15 rule 6 reads as follows:

"6. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (O 15, R 6).

(1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter

(2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application:

(a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party;

(b) order any of the following persons to be added as a