SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt because the Stay Order did not expressly prohibit applying for, presenting or registering an extension of the Prohibitory Order; the Court had clarified the Plaintiff may apply to extend the PO and registration is the procedural method by which an extension takes effect; the alleged misconduct was not particularized within the Statement as required; and by the time of hearing the Court of Appeal had dismissed the Defendant’s appeal making the committal application inappropriate. Accordingly leave was refused and the application dismissed.

Citation
WA-24C-250-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD; Defendant/respondent: KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 October 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-250-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (committal Leave Application) / Ex Parte Application for Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings Under O.52 R.3(2) RC 2012; Application Heard and Dismissed
Outcome
Defendant’s application for leave to commence committal proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings, Prima Facie Contempt, Stay of Execution, Prohibitory Order, Registration of Prohibitory Order
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Construction Law Land Registration Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings Prima Facie Contempt Stay of Execution Prohibitory Order +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff/applicant

KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (committal Leave Application) / Ex Parte Application for Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings Under O.52 R.3(2) RC 2012; Application Heard and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Proposed Contemnors (company and its directors) committed contempt by presenting and registering an Extended Prohibitory Order despite the Stay Order
  2. 2 Whether the Stay Order expressly prohibited applying for, presenting or registering an extension of the Prohibitory Order
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant established a prima facie case of contempt sufficient to grant leave to commence committal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt because the Stay Order did not expressly prohibit applying for, presenting or registering an extension of the Prohibitory Order; the Court had clarified the Plaintiff may apply to extend the PO and registration is the procedural method by which an extension takes effect; the alleged misconduct was not particularized within the Statement as required; and by the time of hearing the Court of Appeal had dismissed the Defendant’s appeal making the committal application inappropriate. Accordingly leave was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant’s application for leave to commence committal proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs to Plaintiff in the sum of RM10,000.00