Dato' Dr Lee Aik Heng v Jonathan Tan Boon Siang (BA-23NCvC-16-03/2024)

JONATHAN TAN BOON SIANG … DEFENDANTS

GLOBAL VISION LOGISTICS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 201701039137 [1253308-D]) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 44)

Enclosure 44 is an interlocutory application by the plaintiff dated 5 August 2025 for this Suit 16 to be transferred to the Shah Alam High Court, NCvC2, to be heard together with Suit No. BA- 21/12/2025 16:20:45 BA-23NCvC-16-03/2024 Kand. 62 22NCvC-18-01/2024 (Suit 18) or to be heard immediately after the disposal of Suit 18.

On 7 October 2025, this Court dismissed Enclosure 44 with costs, based on the reasons below.

In Suit 18, the 2nd defendant herein sued the plaintiff for damages premised upon a complaint that the plaintiff failed to complete the task of preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment Report. The plaintiff stated that there was no breach or misrepresentation, as the works had been carried out in accordance with the contract.

On 8 March 2024, the plaintiff herein sued the 1st and 2nd defendants for defamation in Suit 16 herein. The 1st and 2nd defendants pleaded justification and qualified privilege as their defence.

The principles governing an application to consolidate proceedings are trite. Order 4 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides – Consolidation of causes or matters Where two or more causes or matters are pending, and if it appears to the Court that

some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them;

the rights to relief claimed therein are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or

for some other reason it is desirable to make an order under this rule, the Court may order the causes or matters to be consolidated on such terms as it thinks just or may order the causes or matters to be tried at the same time or one immediately after another or may order any of the causes or matters to be stayed until after the determination of any other of the causes or matters.

In Osaka Resources Sdn Bhd v Foo Holdings Sdn Bhd [2014] 1 MLJ 461, it was held that an application for consolidation will be allowed if there is a common question of law and fact in the suits in question or if the relief sought in the suits arises from the same transaction.

The plaintiff averred that time and costs would be saved because the issues raised by the defendants here overlap with one another and with those in Suit 18, which is based on the same facts and involves the same witnesses and parties.

The defendants contest Enclosure 44 on the basis of the plaintiff's excessive delay in filing it. Furthermore, Suit 18 does not involve the same parties.

Having read the affidavit and submissions from both parties, this Court agrees with the learned counsel for the defendant and finds that Suit 16 and Suit 18 arise from entirely different causes of action and seek different reliefs.

This Court is guided by the principle enunciated in Central Securities (Holdings) Bhd v Haron Bin Mohamed Zaid [1979] 2 MLJ 244, where the Federal Court held that consolidation will not be ordered unless there is a common question of law or fact of sufficient importance involving the same parties.

In Ahmad Amryn bin Abdul Malek Ors v Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd [2012] 8 MLJ 948, the court held that mere sharing of a common subject matter is not sufficient to justify consolidation. In Suit 16, the shared background facts were not sufficient to justify consolidation. This Court also finds that the 1st defendant in Suit 16 is not a party to Suit 18. Delay in filing Enclosure 44

This Court finds that Enclosure 44 was filed only after all the PTCM documents had been filed. The chronology of the documents filed is as follows: a) The Writ dated 08.03.2024 [Enclosure 1]; b) The Statement of Claim dated 06.03.2024 [Enclosure 2]; c) The Statement of Defence dated 26.04.2024 [Enclosure 6; d) The Reply to Defence dated 21.05.2024 [Enclosure 7]; e) Bundle of Pleading [Enclosure 27]; f) Common Issues To Be Tried dated 09.12.2024 [Enclosure 29]; g) Common Agreed Facts dated 28.02.2025 [Enclosure 32]; and h) Common Bundle of Documents (Volumes A until H) [Enclosure 35 until 42].

13.

In Suit 16, the pre-trial direction has been completed, unlike in Suit Therefore, it is unjust for the parties in Suit 16 to endure an extended delay before being afforded the opportunity to have their case adjudicated.

The plaintiff was aware of Suit 18 when filing Suit 16, as Suit 18 had been filed earlier. However, the plaintiff failed to file the application before the trial date was set. Enclosure 44, filed by the plaintiff on 5 August 2025. On 26 August 2024, this Court set the trial date for Suit 16 for 27–30 April 2026. Having considered the number of witnesses and issues to be tried, this Court, during case management on 26 May 2025, reduced the trial date to two days on 27 and 28 April 2026.

In view of the reasons above, Enclosure 44 is dismissed with costs of RM2,000.00, subject to allocator. Dated 21st December 2025. Signed ……………………………………… Hazizah binti Kassim Judicial Commissioner High Court of Civil (NCvC10) Shah Alam, Selangor

For the Plaintiff : Tan Jun Sheng (MOB) Messrs. Wong Hok Mun Partnership (Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur)

For the Defendants : Yen Yen Hock Messrs. Shu Tai (Petaling Jaya, Selangor)