Amtrustee Berhad & 6 Lagi v Aldwich Berhad & 5 Lagi (22NCC-1622-11/2012)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

UNI. ASIA LIFE ASSURANCE … PLAINTIF-

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND BOARD PLAINTIF 20

ALDWICH BERHAD 25 (Dalam Penerimaan)

2.

3.

MAYBANK INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai 30

MAYBAN TRUSTEES BERHAD … DEFENDAN-

ERNST & YOUNG DEFENDAN 35 GROUNDS OF DECISION Background on consequential relief and costs 40 [1] Following the judgment of the Court of 24/7/2017 in the present case in favour of the Plaintiffs the following 4 issues which had arisen for the Court’s determination were identified by Mr. Robert Lazar, 2 learned Counsel for the 4th and 5th Defendants (Aseam and Mayban 5 Trustees respectively). The 4 issues are - “(i) Quantum of the claim as against the 4th and 5th Defendants;

(ii) The award of interest upon the judgment sum as against the 4th and 5th Defendants;

(iii) Whether the 4th and 5th Defendants are entitled to recover contribution against the 1st to 3rd Defendants (‘the Aldwich Defendants’); and 15

(iv) Costs to be paid by the 4th and 5th Defendants”. [2] Having considered the Written cum oral submissions of the 4th and 5th Defendants, 6th Defendant (EY) and the Plaintiffs on consequential reliefs and costs, I made the following Order on 20 5/10/2017: “(i) Judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs in the sum of RM177,248,747.31, as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants;

(ii) as against the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants, judgment in favour of the 25 Plaintiffs in the sum of RM177,248,747.31 to be apportioned in the following manner:-

4th Defendant : 50% 30

5th Defendant : 30%

6th Defendant : 20%

(iii) a Declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are liable in the 35 sum of RM177,248,747.31, being all losses suffered by the Plaintiffs arising from the Plaintiffs’ purchase of the Bonds issued by Aldwich;

(iv) in any event the total damages that can be recovered by the 40 Plaintiffs from the Defendants under sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) above shall not exceed the aggregate sum of RM177,248,747.31;

interest to be paid to the Plaintiffs on the sum of RM148,653,953.20 at the rate of 5% per annum from 1 November 2011 to the date of 45 payment; 3

(vi) the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants pay costs in the sum of 5 RM350,000.00 to the Plaintiffs;

(vii) the 4th Defendant pays costs in the sum of RM300,000.00 to the Plaintiffs; 10

(viii) the 5th Defendant pays costs in the sum of RM150,000.00 to the Plaintiffs;

(ix) the 6th Defendant pays costs in the sum of RM200,000.00 to the Plaintiffs;

the 3rd Defendant’s Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs be dismissed with costs of RM100,000.00 to be paid by the 3rd Defendant to the Plaintiffs”. 20 Findings Whether the quantum of the claim against the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants is still open? [3] It is undisputed that the Judgment of the Court of 24/7/2017 has not been sealed and perfected. Hence the 4th and 5th Defendants’ 25 position is that the quantum of claim against the 4th and 5th Defendants is still open for argument citing the cases:

Seong Fatt Sawmills Sdn Bhd v. Dunlop Malaysia Industries Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 MLJ 286 “The Federal Court, in affirming the decision of trial Judge in a negligence 30 and nuisance claim, held that the trial Judge was correct in giving a supplementary judgment, after re-opening the case to hear arguments on damages, to award damages for loss of profits when the provisional order had not been perfected”. 35

Chua Weng Meng v. Wong Kok Kong [1999] 2 MLJ 416 “In varying the order for costs given after full trial on a negligence claim, the Court held that an order pronounced by a judge whether in open court or in chambers can always be withdrawn, altered or modified by him either on his own initiative or on the application of a party, until such time as the 40 order has been drawn up, passed and entered”. 4 [4] The 6th Defendant took the same position as the 4th and 5th 5 Defendants and in submission stated that in affirming the decision of the trial judge to re-open a case to hear arguments on damages in the case of Seong Fatt Sawmills Sdn Bhd (supra), the Federal Court held that “where it is necessary and the justice of the case requires it, the Court should be at liberty to re-open the case.” 10 [5] The Plaintiffs drew to the Court’s attention the case of Ling Nam Rubber Works v. Leong Bee & Co. (No. 2) [1968] 1 MLJ 265 at 266H left column to 266A-B right column, wherein Ong Hock Thye FJ (as he then was) said - 15 “On the application of the slip rule, Order 28 rule 11, it is equally clear that the same principle applies, be the omission a slip on the part of counsel, on the part of a solicitor, or on the part of a party to the action. An error arising in an order due to accidental omission is to be distinguished from other cases where, to quote Morton J., "if a judge's attention is 20 directed to a particular point, and, applying his mind to that point, he decides it, there can be no alteration under this rule, even if the judge has fallen into manifest error." See In re Inchcape (Earl of), Craigmyle v Inchcape [1942] 1 Ch 394. In the instant case, which is still fresh in our recollection, my brethren and I should have allowed interest, 25 had it been asked for at the time judgment was pronounced, on the principle that to refuse it would be tantamount to condoning and approving unjust enrichment of the respondents to the extent that they had had the use and benefit of moneys to which the appellants were justly entitled”. (Plaintiffs’ emphasis) 30 [5.1] The Plaintiffs submitted that the case of Ling Nam (supra), the 1st Malaysian case which discussed the power of a judge of the High Court to recall an order pronounced prior to its entry and sealing was not dealt in the cases of Seong Fatt Sawmills (supra) and Chua Weng Meng (supra). The Plaintiffs further submitted the correct 35 distinction was drawn by Ong Hock Thye FJ adopting Morton J’s dicta in In re Inchcape (Earl of), Craigmyle v Inchcape [1942] 1 Ch 394 as per the emboldened passage quoted in para 5 above. 5 [6] Whilst it is to be observed that the English Court of Appeal case 5 of In re Harrison’s Share [1955] 1 Ch.260 was referred in the cases of Ling Nam and Seong Fatt Sawmills and Chua Weng Meng which also referred to Seong Fatt Sawmills, with respect I disagreed with the Plaintiffs that this Court is bound to follow Ling Nam’s case as “[I]t is the starting point.” In this regard, I agreed with the 4th and 5th 10 Defendants’ submission that the case of Ling Nam is distinguishable in that the distinction referred to by the Plaintiffs is in respect of an application to amend the order under the slip rule to allow for the additional term of interests to be repaid to be included in the order. Therefore with respect I could not agree with the Plaintiffs’ position 15 that the Court’s power to review its order prior to perfection is “limited to consequential matters like costs and interest.” I am of the view that the case of Seong Fatt Sawmills Sdn Bhd is the applicable case to follow. 20 [7] In Seong Fatt Sawmills Sdn Bhd at p.292 I right column, Abdul Hamid FJ opined - “We are firmly of the view that where it is necessary and the justice of the case requires it, the court should be at liberty to re-open the case”. (Emphasis added) 25 [7.1] In Chua Weng Meng at p.422 G, Zulkefli J (now PCA) referred to the above as one of the governing principles - “Where it is necessary and the justice of the case requires it to be reviewed and when a judge reopened the case with a view to perfecting the order” 30 [7.2] The arguments in respect of whether it is necessary and justice of the case requires that the position on the quantum of the claim as against the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants be addressed is considered under the merits of the quantum of the claim. 35 6 5 [8] In the circumstances I agreed with the position taken by the 4th and 5th Defendants supported by the 6th Defendant that as a matter of law the quantum of claim against the 4th and 5th Defendants is still open as the Judgment of 24/7/2017 had yet to be drawn up and perfected. 10 Estoppel [9] The Plaintiffs’ argument on estoppel does not apply having regard to the sequence of events on 24/7/2007 (as reflected in the Amended Transcript of the Proceedings on 24/7/2017, 31/7/2017 15 wherein the Counsel for 4th and 5th Defendants informed the Court in Chambers of the intended issues on quantum of the claim against the 4th and 5th Defendants and the issue of the award of interest which they wish to address the Court on 18/8/2017. The said issues are particularised in the advance notice of the 4th and 5th Defendant’s 20 position to the Counsel for the Plaintiffs vide letter of their firm’s letter dated 27/7/2017. Merits on the quantum of claim [10] On the merits of quantum of claim, the submission of the 4th 25 and 5th Defendants is it is necessary and the justice of the case requires that the quantum of claim be addressed in 3 grounds, namely - “(i) Damages against the 4th and 5th Defendants ought to be assessed. This was asked for in prayer (x) of the Amended Statement of 30 Claim. The Plaintiffs must prove the loss attributable to the acts or omissions of the 4th and 5th Defendants. (see: Amended Statement of Claim/page 171 Bundle A1)

(ii) Failing which the 4th and 5th Defendants be held liable for the sum 35 of RM125,311,159.45 only, being the balance value of bonds 7 outstanding to the Plaintiffs upon deducting the Plaintiffs’ share of 5 the proceeds of sale of the WOR plant [i.e. RM140,000,000.00 - RM14,688,840.55 (i.e. RM21,089,505.45 x 69.65%)]. This sum of RM125,311,159.45 is then to be apportioned at 50% to the 4th Defendant and 30% to the 5th Defendant. (see: Breakdown of contribution by each Bondholder/page 84 10 Bundle EI7]

(iii) For completion, the value of bonds outstanding to each Plaintiff according to their respective bondholding and the maturity date of each tranche are set out below:- 15 No. Bondholders Redemption Maturity date

1st and 2nd Plaintiffs (AM) RM9,000,000 15 Aug 2010 15 Aug 2011 15 Aug 2012 15 Aug 2013 15 Aug 2014 15 Aug 2015 15 Aug 2016 15 Aug 2017 Total

3rd Plaintiff (CIMB) 15 Aug 2010 15 Aug 2011 15 Aug 2014 15 Aug 2015 15 Aug 2017 15 Aug 2018 Sub-Total

4th Plaintiff (RHB) 15 Aug 2013 4. 5th Plaintiff (HSBC) RM6,000,000 15 Aug 2012 Sub-Total

6th Plaintiff (UNI ASIA) RM5,000,000 15 Aug 2011 15 Aug 2016 Sub-Total 8 Grand Total RM140,000,000 5 This is because firstly, an award of damages against the 4th and 5th Defendants should not be more than the value of the bonds outstanding to the Plaintiffs because the measure of damages recoverable by a commission of tort is compensatory in nature. The purpose is to put the person whose right has been infringed in the same position as if it had been respected so far as the 10 award of a sum of money can do.

The judgment of Lord Diplock in Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero (Owners) [1977] AC 774 at pg.841 paragraphs C-D of judgment. 15

(ii) Aseambankers Malaysia Bhd & Ors v Shencourt Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 4 MLJ 619 at pg.639 paragraph [40] and [41] of judgment. Secondly, a distinction must be drawn between the Aldwich Defendants on the one hand and the 4th and 5th Defendants on the other. The Aldwich 20 Defendants are the primary wrongdoers, in that it was really the default on the part of Aldwich that was the basis for the Plaintiffs’ action. The 4th and 5th Defendants are not primary debtors or guarantors and if at all, were only secondary wrongdoers for their respective roles as Lead Arranger, Facility Agent and Security Agent (for the 4th Defendant) and as Trustee (for the 5th Defendant), 25 respectively. The 4th and 5th Defendants should not be liable for the full amount of Aldwich’s contractual indebtedness to the Plaintiffs bondholders.

The Federal Court in CIMB Bank Bhd v. Maybank Trustees Bhd & Ors [2014] 3 MLJ 169 (the Pesaka Judgment). [I]n drawing a distinction between the 30 liability of a primary and secondary wrongdoer, had this to say - “Secondly, to hold MTB liable for the full amount of Pesaka’s indebtedness would amount to treating MTB as if it was either the primary debtor or guarantor. It is pertinent to note that in actual fact MTB was neither the primary debtor nor a guarantor to the bonds issue. Instead MTB was the trustee who failed to ring 35 fence the sum of RM107m that came into the RA. The amount that came to the RA does not exceed RM107m. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that MTB should only be liable for RM107m and not the full amount of RM149,315,000 as ordered by the High Court”. 40 The sum of RM177,248,747.31 is not applicable to the 4th and 5th Defendants as this sum represents the full amount of Aldwich’s contractual indebtedness to the Plaintiffs bondholders. The Plaintiff had at paragraph 80 of the Amended Statement of Claim computed this sum based on Clause 11 of the Senior Bonds Trust Deed dated 22nd May 2003, which provides that all sums 45 payable under the Bonds become immediately due and payable by the Issuer at the “Event of Default Redemption Value” if an Event of Default has been declared. The Plaintiffs’ entitlement was calculated to be RM177,248,747.31, i.e.

67.16% of the total sum owing to the bondholders as at 31.7.2012. 50 [para 80 SOC/pgs 138-141 SOC] [Clause 11 Senior Bonds Trust Deed/pgs 281-283 DII]”. 9 5 [11] The 6th Defendant in submission among others stated that - “(a) The jurisprudence is clear that in cases of professional negligence, any damages awarded is compensatory. The principal object of an award of damages is to restore the claimants to their original position but for the defendant’s breach.

Similarly, the statutory liability for misrepresentations contained in a prospectus, as imposed by s.57 of the Securities Commission Act 1993 and s.248 of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, provides for recovery of the loss caused by the inclusion of the 15 misrepresentation but not for recovery of the full expected payment value of the investment”. [11.1] The 6th Defendant argued this is consistent with the Plaintiffs’ prayers in the Further Re-Amended Statement of Claim where - 20 “As against Aldwich, the Plaintiffs only asked for judgment in the sum of RM177,248,747.31 (i.e. expectation damages. However, as against the 4th, 5th, and 6th Defendants, the Plaintiffs also asked for “any other sum that the Court deems fit and proper.” Further, the Plaintiffs asked for a declaration that the Defendants “are liable for all losses suffered by the 25 Plaintiffs arising from the Plaintiffs’ purchase of the Bonds issued by Aldwich.””. [11.2] The 6th Defendant further submitted the consequential relief for reliance damages against them which in law is the amount 30 necessary to fully compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss arising from the purchase of the bonds ought to be assessed by way of a hearing before the Registrar; the Plaintiffs must prove their loss calculated according to the formula - “Actual purchase price of bonds 35 - Amounts received for any bonds sold pre-default - Amounts received for any bonds redeemed pre-default - Amount received on liquidation of WOR plant post-default __________________________________________________________ 40 = Amount necessary to compensate Plaintiffs for purchasing bonds”. 10 [11.3] EY contended that as provided in the Judgment, this amount 5 (if at all) ought to be severally apportioned 50% to the 4th Defendant, 30% to the 5th Defendant, and 20% to EY, with interest at 5% per annum from the respective bond purchase dates (as reduced to account for any bonds sold or redeemed pre-default and proceeds received from the sale of the WOR plant). 10 [11.4] The 6th Defendant also submitted in the alternative in that if the Court does not accept the above submission, the Court may make the following orders and in this regard they adopted the 4th and 5th Defendants’ submission - “(a) judgment against the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants in the sum of 15 RM125,311,159.45, to be apportioned on a several basis at 50% to the 4th Defendant, 30% to the 5th Defendant and 20% to EY with interest at 5% per annum from the respective maturity dates. This sum represents the balance of matured bond payments which remain outstanding, upon deducting the Plaintiffs’ share of the sale 20 of the WOR plant; or

judgment against the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants in the sum of RM148,653,953.20 to be apportioned on several basis at 50% to the 4th Defendant, 30% to the 5th Defendant and 20% to EY with 25 interest at 5% per annum from the the date of writ until payment. This sum represents the Judgment sum of RM177,248,747.31 recalculated to correct the issue of giving interest upon interest”. [12] With respect I was not inclined to reduce the amount of 30 damages of RM177,248,747.31 to the amount of RM125,311,159.45 as submitted by Counsel for the 4th and 5th Defendants for the following reasons: [12.1] The Table of the 4th and 5th Defendants referred in para 10 above is factually incorrect and ought to be corrected as reflected 35 with the striking through and corrections done on the said Table shown below - 11 5 “ No. Bondholders Redemption Maturity date 1. 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs (AM) RM 9,000,000 RM19,000,000 RM15,000,000 RM 5,000,000 15 Aug 2010 15 Aug 2011 15 Aug 2012 15 Aug 2013 15 Aug 2014 15 Aug 2015 15 Aug 2016 15 Aug 2017 Total RM69,000,000

3rd Plaintiff (CIMB) RM4,372,336.15 13 15 Aug 2010 15 Aug 2013 2011 15 Aug 2014 15 Aug 2015 15 Aug 2017 15 Aug 2018 Sub-Total RM49,372,336.15

4th Plaintiff (RHB) 14 Aug 2015 15 Aug 2013 4. 5th Plaintiff (HSBC) RM6,000,000 15 Aug 2012 Sub-Total

6th Plaintiff (UNI ASIA) RM5,000,000 15 Aug 2011 15 Aug 2016 Sub-Total Grand Total RM139,372,336.15 RM140,000,000 ” 12 5 [12.2] I find the reason proffered by the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants, that the “measure of damages recoverable in tort is compensatory in nature” and the 4th and 5th Defendants “should not be liable for the full amount of Aldwich’s contractual indebtedness to the Plaintiffs’ bondholders (para 10 at p.8 above (top)), to be misplaced given the 10 Court’s finding against the 4th and 5th Defendants for breach of contract and against the 5th Defendant for breach of trust. As correctly submitted by the Plaintiffs these causes of action allowed the Plaintiffs to recover the full amount of RM177,248,747.31. Further the 5th Defendant has the obligation as “defaulting trustee to effect 15 restitution to the trust estate by restoring its assets”. [12.3] In rebuttal to the argument that a distinction between the amount of damages to be awarded to the 1st , 2nd and 3rd Defendants as opposed to the 4th and 5th Defendants, I agreed with the Plaintiffs’ submission that I did not find the 4th and 5th Defendants to be 20 “secondary wrongdoers”; in other words they are found liable by their own actions or omissions. [12.4] In any event an EOD was called on 18/2/2010 which resulted in the entire Bonds becoming immediately due and payable thereby triggering the calculation of the EOD redemption Value by the 5th 25 Defendant, the Calculation Agent. The accrual of the default interest pursuant to Clause 6 of the Trust Deed flows from the calling of the EOD. Aldwich failed to pay any amount. Neither did the Plaintiffs receive any satisfaction of the EOD Redemption Value plus default interest except for realisation from the sale of the WOR Plant. 30 [12.5] In relation to the 4th and 5th Defendants’ argument that the compensatory damages in tort “is to put the person whose right has been infringed in the same position as if it had been respected so far 13 as the award of a sum of money can do.”, I accepted the Plaintiffs’ 5 submission that sections 57 and 153 of the Securities Commission Act 1993 entitled the Plaintiffs to recover their loss and damage in the sum of RM177,248,747.31 (which sum was not challenged at trial and in the Written Submissions under that cause of action) against the 4th and 5th Defendants. In this connection by extension the Court’s 10 findings extended to the 6th Defendant. Award of interest [13] The 4th and 5th Defendants and by adoption of the latter’s submission, the 6th Defendant, submitted - 15

Interests should not be ordered on the sum of RM177,248,747.31 as - “(i) This sum was calculated taking into account, inter alia, the Default Interest of 1% per annum over the applicable base lending rate of Malayan Banking Berhad prescribed in Clause 6 of the Trust Deed, 20 which is the contractual default interest applicable to Aldwich as a result of its breach of the terms of the Programme. This is reflected in the manner in which the Plaintiffs bondholders computed this sum at paragraph 80 of the Amended Statement of Claim. 25

(ii) To award the interests on the sum of RM177,248,747.31 against the 4th & 5th Defendant would tantamount to giving of interest upon interest. This is prohibited under Section 11 of the Civil Law Act 1956”. 30 [14] Interests should be computed on the sum of RM140 million and calculated at 5% per annum from the respective maturity dates. [15] Alternative to the position in para 14 above, the 4th and 5th Defendants submitted that the Judgment sum of RM177,248,747.31 35 be entered against the 4th and 5th Defendants, interest calculated at 5% per annum as follows: 14 5 “ Date Description Accrued Interest to Plaintiffs 18.2.2010 Event of Default Redemption Value (“Principal Sum”) RM242,432,497.16

18.2.2010 until 31.10.2011 Interest of 5% per annum accruing on Principal Sum until sale of WOR Plant on 31.10.2011 RM20,623,367.22 5% of RM242,432,497.16 RM13,850,653.43 31.10.2011 Amount due to all hondholders after sale of WOR Plant for RM21,089,505.45 RM221,342,991.71 (RM242,432,497.16 – RM21,089,505.45) Principal Sum owing to Plaintiffs (67.16%) RM148,653,953.20 69.65% of 221 million ” Interest of 5% on Principal Sum of RM148,653,953.20 from the date of filing of the Writ (5/11/2012) to the date of payment. 10 [16] The Plaintiffs opposed the position taken by the 4th and 5th Defendants on the alternative figure of RM148,653,953.20 raising the following points:

The figure of RM148,653,953.20 is unreliable for the Plaintiffs had difficulties in arriving at the figure of RM20,623,367.22 or the 15 corrected figure of RM21,089,505.45 (RM242,432,497.16 - RM221,342.991.71) being the alleged “interest of 5% per annum accruing on Principal Sum until sale of WOR Plant on 31/10/2011”.

Absence of calculation of interest for the period between 1/11/2011 and 4/11/2012 (before filing of the Writ on 5/11/2012). 20 15 [17] During clarification on 25/9/2017 learned Counsel for the 4th 5 and 5th Defendants conceded there was a gap as far as interests was concerned for the period 1/11/2011 and 4/11/2012. Learned Counsel then submitted the following: “WOR plant sold – 31/10/2011 Interest of 5% on principal sum of RM148 million to obviate any gap 10 should be from 1/11/2011. Order then should be RM148,653,953.20 plus 13,850,653.43 (interest which ran from principal amount from date of default to sale of WOR plant). 15 From 1/11/2011 interest of 5% on principal sum of RM148,653,953.20 to the date of realisation or payment. In that way we get out of the interest upon interest argument. We are not 20 deviating from RM177 million”. [18] I find there is merit in the 4th and 5th Defendants’ argument in para 13(a)(ii) above that the giving of interest upon interest should be avoided as it is prohibited by s.11 of the Civil Law Act. In the 25 circumstances I allowed interest to be paid to the Plaintiffs on the sum of RM148,653,953.20 at the rate of 5% from 1/11/2011 to date of payment. Costs 30 [19] This case involved the following:

the case involved 4 parties: Plaintiffs(1st-7th) v. 1st-3rd Defendants; 4th-5th Defendants; and 6th Defendant;

(ii) 76 volumes of documents;

(iii) trial spanned over a period of 41 days, inclusive of 2 days of oral submissions; 16

(iv) there were altogether 19 witnesses, including 2 expert 5 witnesses, one called by the Plaintiffs and the other called by the 6 th Defendant; and

8 Written Submissions (Principal and Reply Submissions), 16 Bundles of Authorities and 9 volumes of Notes of Evidence. 10 [20] Taking into consideration the above matters and giving due regard to O.59 r.16 (a), (b), (c) and (e) ROC 2012, I find -

there is complexity of the issues involved;

much skill and specialised knowledge of the bond industry and securities law, apart from contract law, tort of negligence, including 15 law on professional negligence and responsibility required of the Counsel conducting the trial; not to mention the time and labour expended by them in getting up their respective claims and defences;

the voluminous documents involved during the trial; and

the importance of the cause or matter to their respective clients 20 as the stakes involved are high. [21] In submission the parties sought the following amounts as costs:

RM1.8 million for 6 Defendants (global figure);

(ii) Go by law firms that represented parties - RM600,000.00;

(iii) Per litigant - RM300,000.00;

(iv) Counterclaim as against Kamalul - RM 500,000.00. The Plaintiffs drew to the Court’s attention that Mary Lim J in the 30 Pesaka trial awarded costs as follows: “Costs awarded against Amount (RM) Pesaka Astana (D1), Rafie (D4), Murnina (D5) 17 and AMDAC companies (D6-D12) 400,000.00 5 Mayban Trustees (D2) and KAF (D3) 800,000.00” Defendants’ proposal for costs awarded against - 4th and 5th Defendants 10 Aseam - RM200,000.00 Maybank Trustees - RM100,000.00 6th Defendant Costs of RM80,000.00 15 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants Costs of RM120,000.00 For Counterclaim, costs of RM50,000.00. 20 [22] In the circumstances I ordered costs in favour of the Plaintiffs as alluded to in para 2(vi) to (x) above. Conclusion [23] For the foregoing reasons, I ordered accordingly. 25 Dated: 12/1/2018 30 SGD. (LAU BEE LAN) Judge 35 18 Counsel for the Plaintiffs: 5 Encik Tommy Thomas together with Encik Alan Gomez, Cik Michelle Kummar & Encik Michael Yap Messrs Tommy Thomas Advocates & Solicitors 10 101, Jalan Ara Bangsar Baru Bangsar 59100 Kuala Lumpur 15 Counsel for the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Defendants: Encik V. Manokaran together with Encik M.R. Kumar and Encik N. Yohendra 20 Messrs Kumar Associates Advocates & Solicitors No.5, Jalan Maran, Taman Tasik Titiwangsa 53200 Kuala Lumpur 25 Counsel for the 4th & 5th Defendants: Encik Robert Lazar together with Cik Lai Wai Fong, Encik T.T. Toi & Cik Aarti Jeyarajah 30 Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co Advocates & Solicitors 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzah-Kwong Hing No.1 Leboh Ampang 50100 Kuala Lumpur 35 Counsel for the 6th Defendant: Encik Kelvin Seet together with 40 Cik Vendee Chai Messrs Cheang & Ariff Advocates & Solicitors 39 COURT @ Loke Mansion 273A, Jalan Medan Tuanku 45 50300 Kuala Lumpur