BENTLEY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED PUSB ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

BENTLEY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED PUSB ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

The application for a stay (Enclosure 147) was dismissed because the Defendant failed to establish special circumstances: the disclosure orders were limited and necessary for quantifying damages and not protected by s129, the Defendant's claims were speculative or collaterally attacking the judgment, the merits of the appeal are irrelevant to a stay, and the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff who would be prejudiced by deprivation of the fruits of judgment.

Citation
WA-22IP-58-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bentley Systems, Incorporated; Defendant: PUSB Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 October 2025
Case Number
WA-22IP-58-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement / Post‑judgment Stay Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
Defendant's Notice of Application (Enclosure 147) for stay of execution and stay of assessment dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Assessment of Damages, Post‑judgment Disclosure, Injunction, Appeal
Source Language
Malay/English
Intellectual Property Copyright Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Assessment of Damages Post‑judgment Disclosure Injunction Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bentley Systems, Incorporated

Plaintiff

PUSB Engineering Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement / Post‑judgment Stay Application Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist to justify a stay of execution pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether assessment of damages should be stayed pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether disclosure orders (delivery up and production of financial records) cause irreparable harm or attract legal professional privilege under Section 129 Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay (Enclosure 147) was dismissed because the Defendant failed to establish special circumstances: the disclosure orders were limited and necessary for quantifying damages and not protected by s129, the Defendant's claims were speculative or collaterally attacking the judgment, the merits of the appeal are irrelevant to a stay, and the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff who would be prejudiced by deprivation of the fruits of judgment.

Court Disposition

Defendant's Notice of Application (Enclosure 147) for stay of execution and stay of assessment dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 147 dismissed with costs of RM5000.00