The court clarified the elements of lawful means conspiracy and the requirement for predominant intention to injure the claimant.

Introduction

[1] For ease of reference, in the judgment, we will refer to the appellants as "defendants" and the respondent as "plaintiff".

[2] These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 10 June 2015 given by the Shah Alam High Court in Civil Suit Nos: B-02(NCVC)(W)-993-06-2015, B-02(NCVC)(W)- 1100-07-2015 and B-02 (NCVC)(W)-1101-07-2015. By the said impugned judgment, Her Ladyship granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff against all the defendants and dismissed the 1st defendant's counterclaim.

[3] Her Ladyship held that the plaintiff had proven its case against the defendants for breach of contract as well as its claim of tort of conspiracy to injure against all the defendants and ordered a compensation sum of RM6,299,971.72 with 5% interest per annum from the date of the writ to the date of satisfaction. Further, Her Ladyship declared that the tenancy agreement dated 3 January 2011 between the 3rd defendant and the 4th defendant was invalid.

[4] Dissatisfied, all the defendants appealed to this Court but the 2nd defendant's appeal was struck out on 4 November 2015.

Parties

[5] The parties at the High Court are as follows:

1. Cubic Electronic Sdn Bhd

2. Goh Seng Chong

3. Mars Telecommunication Sdn Bhd

4. Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka

Facts Of The Case

[6] Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts giving rise to these appeals may be shortly stated as follows:

(a) The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are private limited companies incorporated in Malaysia. The 1st defendant was a registered owner of a land situated at Mukim Bukit Katil, District of Melaka Tengah, Melaka ("the subject property").

(b) The 2nd defendant is the Director and the majority shareholder of the 1st defendant.

(c) The plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into the Master Tenancy Agreement ("MTA") for a period of three years commencing from 12 August 2009 and expiring on 11 August 2012 where the 1st defendant was to let out the subject property to the plaintiff.

(d) Pursuant to the MTA, the plaintiff paid a security deposit of RM500,000.00 and utility deposit of RM50,000.00 to the 1st defendant. A monthly rental of the subject property was fixed at RM250,000.00.

(e) According to the plaintiff, whilst the MTA was still subsisting, the 1st defendant had entered into a tenancy agreement dated 14 January 2011 with the 3rd defendant over the same subject property with a monthly rental of RM116,099.25.

(f) Prior to that, the 3rd defendant had entered into a sub-tenancy agreement dated 3 January 2011 with the 4th defendant with monthly rental agreed at RM1,486,070.40, also over the same subject property.

(g) The plaintiff averred that the 1st and 2nd defendants together with the 3rd and 4th defendants had conspired to deprive the plaintiff of its right under the MTA.

(h) The plaintiff further averred that the 1st defendant had breached the MTA by failing to give vacant possession of the subject property to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff initiated this action.

(i) The defendants resisted the suit and filed their respective statements of defence. The 1st defendant alleged that the plaintiff had failed to pay the rental and refused to take vacant possession. Therefore, the 1st defendant, by its solicitor's letter dated 31 March 2011, terminated the MTA. The 1st defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff seeking, inter alia, for a declaration that the MTA dated 12 August 2009 between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff be deemed terminated and unenforceable.

The Appeal

[7] The memorandum of appeal raised several grounds to assail the impugned judgment but before us, the arguments were c