Tycoon G Gnanalingam, two former cabinet ministers and 23 others have been made third party defendants in the suit filed by the Port Klang Authority (PKA) against its former general manager OC Phang.

This follows the Court of Appeal decision on Friday, which allowed Phang's appeal to include the 26 - all former PKA board members - to be a party in the suit.

Justice Zamani A Rahim, who read out the unanimous decision, said the High Court had erroneously ruled that holding Phang's liability to PKA was of a personal nature.

The Court of Appeal further listed four grounds for this:

1. At all material times Phang maintained that the third parties were integral to the decision making process surrounding the PKFZ project;

2. The third parties who were representatives of the Finance Ministry and the Transport Ministry at the material time a played crucial factor in expressing their views;

3. It is undisputed that the Transport and Finance Ministries were the ultimate approving authorities of PKA;

4. It would be fallacy for liability to be squarely placed on Phang's personal capacity, when the thrust of the decision making process was helmed by the various government ministries, to which PKA is subjected to.

'Appellate intervention warranted'

In the judgment, made available to Malaysiakini the judge noted, "It is settled law where a trial judge has not directed his mind to the relevant issues at hand, appellate intervention is warranted to remedy the fundamental misdirection of fact and law," .

The other judges were justice Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, who led the three-member bench, and justice Zaleha Yusof.

According to the judgment, Phang claimed the 26 individuals as a joint tortfeasor - a legal term for two or more persons who commit a wrong or tort jointly - in the event PKA's suit was successful.

"To that end, all that needs to be demonstrated is proof of joint participation between the appellant (Phang) and the third parties," read the judgment.

Gnanalingam is the Wesport Malaysia Sdn Bhd executive chairperson while the two former cabinet ministers are Ting Chew Peh and Chor Chee Heung.

The 23 others are Abdul Rahman Palil, Abdul Rahman Mohd Noor, Zubir Abd Aziz, Choong Two Chong, P Chandrasekaran, Abdul Rahman Mokti, Dr Abd Munit Kasmin, Ahmat Abu, Yap Pian Hon, Ahmad Bhari Abd Rahman, Loh Chew June, V Ravindran, Muhammad Safaruddin Muhd Sidek, Nor Rizan Mohd Thani, Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar, K Tarmalingam, Tan Boon Suan, Mohamad Nor Taib, Mohd Zanuddin Ahmad Rasidi. Noordin Sulaiman, Zakaria Bahari, Lim Yuk Hwa and Mohd Sinon Mudzakir.

PKA had filed a civil suit against Phang for breach of duty as its former general manager in relations to the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) controversy.

Following this, Phang in 2011 filed third party notices to include the 26 individuals who were PKA board members at the material time in the suit.

This application was struck out in 2015 by the High Court.

Third parties were involved

Meanwhile, justice Zamani pointed out that circular No 3, 1998 that was adopted by the PKA on Dec 7, 2000 had expressly stated that board members are jointly responsible for all decisions made by the PKA, regardless of whether they were present at meetings.

The judge said the High Court judgment failed to consider or had merely glossed over the effect of this circular.

"Instead the learned judicial commissioner proffered the view that the plaintiff's (PKA) claim was in relation to personal breaches committed by Phang in her capacity as the general manager of the PKA, which does not involve third parties," he said.

Justice Zamani said this was a wrong notion as the PKA board minutes produced before the Court of Appeal had shown there was involvement by the third parties on discussions and decisions pertaining to the PKFZ project.

"We noted that even the High Court had made a finding that the third parties were involved and had participated in some decision making process involving the PKFZ project," he said.

"The true extent of the third parties' involvement in the PKA board meetings can only be determined through a full trial of the action, wherein their testimony be subjected to curial scrutiny."

Justice Zamani in allowing the appeal said due to the intricacies and complexities of facts and issues raised, it was best that the claim against the third parties be allowed to be ventilated in a full trial.

Phang was represented by Matthew Thomas Philip, Lavinia Kumaraendran and Mavinthra Jothy, while the third parties were represented by P Jeyakumar.