The tort of conspiracy can be established without privity of contract when evidence demonstrates a combination of efforts by alleged co-conspirators to inflict harm.

[31] On this, we find that the learned judge had failed to consider that the 6th defendant was in fact related to the 2nd defendant, the Managing Director of the 1st defendant, that he had office space in the 1st defendant's showroom, and that he was referred to as the "current manager" of the 1st defendant, that "he is the right person to talk to because he is the influential one and the person that can assist us in importing cars". These seemingly innocuous factors were relevant and indicative of the role played by the 6th defendant in relation to the 1st defendant; that he was, in truth, and in reality, not a "mere broker who introduced potential buyers for cars sold by the 1st defendant" but someone who had a fairly substantial role to play in the 1st defendant. It is highly unlikely that such a "mere broker", as described by the 2nd defendant, would have been given the mandates and degree of authorisation to act on behalf of the 1st defendant as the 6th defendant did.

[32] Although the 6th defendant was a broker, he had the mandate to sign as the 1st defendant's representative and more significantly, as director in a subtenancy agreement dated 28 February 2013 to rent land or space on behalf of the 1st defendant for the purpose of the 1st defendant's purposes. The land located at Centre Point Bandar Utama, Lot 125 Lebuh Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya was rented for exhibition purposes by the 1st defendant - see pp 723 to 727 [exh P2]. This document was not challenged at the trial. In fact, Mohd Yuzamil Mohd Yunus, a Director of Piramid Azim Sdn Bhd, the main tenant with whom the 1st defendant sub-tenanted the land, testified as PW3. This witness testified that the land was tenanted for use as showroom space "for demo and exhibition".

[33] The plaintiff further tendered the letters exchanged between the 1st defendant and the Malaysian Royal Customs Department, and with the Road Transport Department around the same period. These letters, written by Mohd Fazlan Ahmad Tarmuzi [DW2], who is the 2nd defendant's son and a Director of the 1st defendant, showed various arrangements made by the 1st defendant to use the land as sub-tenanted by the 6th defendant including seeking the permission of the Customs Department to take 20 of its cars from the licensed warehouse "for demo and exhibition" at that sub-tenanted place - see pp 680 to 686. This sub-tenanting of the land at Centre Point cannot be the act of a mere broker According to PW3, the 6th defendant signed the tenancy agreement as the 1st defendant's director and even paid the deposit for the rental. Although both DW1 [the 2nd defendant] and DW2 had no knowledge of this sub-tenancy agreement, it remains unchallenged and independent evidence of the role played by the 6th defendant; that the land rented and where the deposit was paid for by him for the 1st defendant, was indeed utilised by the 1st defendant for the 1st defendant's purpose and no other.

[34] There is further evidence of the importance and role of the 6th defendant in the 1st defendant in the letters sent by the 1st defendant to the Road Transport Department. In those letters, the 1st defendant advised that the 6th defendant was its authorised representative in matters relating to the trade plates to be used for the cars on sale.

[35] The status of the 6th defendant as 'mere broker' is further disproved by a letter dated 9 October 2012, signed by the 2nd defendant to the Immigration Department. In this letter, the 2nd defendant advised the Immigration Department that the 6th defendant is authorised to represent him in matters before the department - see p 721.

[36] Further, the learned judge failed to have regard to the fact that the import and sales of the luxury cars could not have come to pass unless and until there was an entity with the APs. Wi