Logistics tycoon G Gnanalingam, two former ministers and 20 others will remain as third party defendants in Port Klang Authority's (PKA) breach of fiduciary duty suit against former general manager OC Phang over the Port Klang Free Zone project until the High Court trial concludes.

This comes after the Federal Court today denied the 23 former PKA board members leave to challenge their inclusion as third party defendants by Phang.

The Court of Appeal had earlier decided that all 23 would remain as defendants in the PKA breach of fiduciary duty suit.

The three-member Federal Court bench, led by Chief Judge of Malaya Ahmad Ma'arop, refused to grant leave after they ruled that the submission by counsel J Doshi, who represented all 23, did not pass the threshold under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act.

The other Federal Court judges who made the unanimous decision with Justice Ahmad were Justice Hasan Lah and Justice Abu Samah Nordin.

“This is an interlocutory matter and it depends on the facts as this is an important case. Therefore, there are triable issues and the case should go on trial at the High Court,” Justice Ahmad said.

The bench ordered the 23 applicants to pay RM10,000 in costs.

Phang, in her application on May 5, 2011, claimed the 23 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 for breach of fiduciary duty against her was successful.

The two former ministers are Ting Chew Peh and Chor Chee Heung, while Gnanalingam (photo) is Westports (M) Sdn Bhd chairperson.

The others are Abdul Rahman Palil, Abdul Rahman Mohd Noor, Zubir Abd Aziz, Choong Two Chong, Abdul Rahman Mokti, Dr Abd Munit Kasmin, 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.

They had posed four questions of law to be decided by the Federal Court, should leave be granted.

Although the suit was filed in 2009, the hearing officially began on Dec 7, 2016.

Earlier, the High Court had dismissed Phang's application to bring the former PKA board members into the matter as third party defendants.

Phang (photo) filed an appeal and the Court of Appeal early this year allowed it, with Justice Zamani A Rahim listing four grounds for allowing the application.

The grounds listed by the Court of Appeal are:

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 Ministries of Finance and Transport at the material time, played a crucial factor in expressing their views;

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

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

The hearing of PKA's suit against Phang is scheduled to resume on Sept 19, with the cross-examination of former PKA chairperson Lee Hwa Beng.

During today's proceedings in the Federal Court, Doshi argued that the 23 should not be included as third party defendants as the claim is against Phang, and not the 23.

However, Matthew Thomas Philip, who appeared for Phang together with Lavinia Kumaraendran, maintained that there are still triable issues, and it would be wrong to strike out their client's application because the third parties had actively participated in the PKA decision-making.