PERINTIS GEMILANG SDN. BHD. v 1. ) CHEE BEE GAIK 2. ) CHEE SOON AUN 3. ) LIM KIM CHEW 4. ) SARINA BT JUSOH

Case Significance

Illustrates the exercise of the court's discretion under Order 15 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 to add parties, and the relevance of partners' liability under the Partnership Act 1961 to the joinder of a firm's partners where the claim shares the same factual matrix.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application under Aturan 15 kaedah 6 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 15 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012) for leave to add two new defendants. The plaintiff had commenced a writ action in December 2024 against four defendants, the fourth of whom is an advocate and solicitor practising in a named law firm. Some four months later, in April 2025, the plaintiff applied to add two advocates and solicitors who are partners of the fourth defendant in the same firm as the fifth and sixth defendants. The question was whether the court should exercise its discretion to permit the joinder at that stage.

Order 15 rule 6 confers on the court a discretion to add parties at any stage of the proceedings, but that discretion is exercised with care: a joinder should not be allowed if it would result in delay and the postponement of the trial, and the proposed claim against the new parties should not be obviously unsustainable. The Court considered the timing of the application and found there had been no delay in filing it, and that it was reasonable to name the fourth defendant's partners, given that the potential liability of partners for the acts of the firm is engaged by section 11 of the Akta Perkongsian 1961 (section 11 of the Partnership Act 1961). Whether that liability is ultimately established would fall to be determined at trial, but the claim was not an obviously unsustainable one.

The Court also noted that the proposed amendments to the statement of claim consequent on the joinder would not change the plaintiff's cause of action, being similar to the plea already made against the fourth defendant and based on the same factual matrix, while the existing defendants remained at liberty to amend their defence. Exercising its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, the Court allowed the application to add the two partners as the fifth and sixth defendants. The judgment is a useful illustration of the exercise of the court's discretion under Order 15 rule 6 to add parties, and of the relevance of partners' liability under the Partnership Act 1961 to the joinder of a firm's partners where the claim shares the same factual matrix.