JUDGMENT

1. By consent of parties Suit No D-22NCC-560-2010, D-22NCC-561-2010, D-22NCC-562-2010, D-22NCC-563-2010, D-22NCC-564-2010, D-22NCC-565-2010, D-22NCC-566-2010, D-22NCC-567-2010 and D-22NCC-568-2010 were heard one immediately after another.

2. There was no application made under for a consolidation of the cases.

3. Counsel D. Bhaskaran and Denise Tan acted for the Plaintiff in all 9 suits and Counsel D. Paramalingam acted for all the 9 Defendants.

4. At the commencement of the trial, Counsel for the Plaintiff informed the Court that he would be calling as his first witness Chong Wai Mun (PW1), Manager of Bursa Malaysia Depository Sdn Bhd in Suit No D-22NCC-560-2010. And that in order to avoid calling PW1 repeatedly in all the other suits, his evidence would be referred to and adopted as evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff in the other 8 Suits. Counsel for the Defendant agreed to this arrangement.

5. In Suit No. D-22NCC-560-2010, Counsel for the Plaintiff called Chan Kim Hing (PW2), Executive Director and Head of Operations of the Plaintiff as his next witness. The written witness statement of PW2 was erroneously marked as PW1S when it should have been marked as PW2S.

6. Chan Kim Hing (PW2) was called as the only witness, as PW1, in the other 8 Suits respectively. In those cases the written witness statement of Chan Kim Hing was correctly marked as PW1S throughout.

7. It was also agreed between parties that Counsel for the Defendant would cross-examine Chan Kim Hing (PW2) extensively in Suit No. D-22NCC-560-2010 only and that he would not repeat his detailed cross- examination in the subsequent suits save for specific issues pertaining to them.

8. Save for the Defendant in Suit No. D-22NCC-560-2010 who elected not to be present at the trial to give evidence on his own behalf, all the other 8 Defendants gave their evidence respectively.

9. The Plaintiff's Case

9.1. The Plaintiff is a stock-broking firm and at all material times was a Participating Organisation of Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd (Bursa Malaysia).

9.2. The Defendant was at all material times a client of the Plaintiff having opened 2 trading accounts namely, an Individual Trading Account and a Margin Account on 5/3/07 and 6/6/07 respectively.

9.3. On 6/6/07, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written Margin Trading Facility Agreement wherein the Defendant agreed inter alia , to pay to the Plaintiff all sums due and owing from time to time arising from share transactions carried out on the Defendant's accounts, together with interest at the rate of 13% per annum.

9.4. The Commissioned Dealer's Representative (CDR) or Remiscier, acting for the Defendant in the 2 accounts was one Pneh Tee Eong (Pneh).

9.5. Due to the contra loses sustained by the Defendant in the Individual Trading Account, the Plaintiff by letters dated 12/7/07 and 16/8/07 demanded payment and warned the Defendant that if he failed to settle his losses, the Plaintiff would submit his name as a defaulter to Bursa Malaysia.

9.6 By letter dated 30/8/07, due to the Defendant's non payment he was reported by the Plaintiff to Bursa Malaysia to be posted as a defaulter.

9.7 Due to the Defendant's failure to pay the sums claimed, the Plaintiff force sold the Defendant's shares on the Accounts. As at 30/4/09, the Defendant still owed the Plaintiff the sum of RM 1,084,147.14 together with interest thereon under the Individual Trading Account and the sum of RM619,700.26 together with interest thereon under the Margin Account.

9.8 As the Defendant chose not to attend Court and to testify, the Plaintiff contended that its claim stood unrebutted and that the Defendant's Counter-Claim was not proven.

10. The Defendant's Case

10.1. The Defendant admitted opening a Trading Account as well as a Margin Account with the Plaintiff but denied the Plaintiffs claim wholly and relied on the following defences, namely:-

a) Pneh, the CDR/Remiscier was appointed and authorised by the Plaintiff to conduct all transactions on the 2 Ac