An Anton Piller Order must be backed by a substantive cause of action and cannot be executed after its expiry, constituting an abuse of court process.

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 1)

Nadzarin Wok Nordin JC:

[1] In the Notice of Motion dated 19 May 2021 in encl 1 (Motion), the Applicant has applied pursuant to O 18 r 19 (a)(b) (c) and (d) of the Rules of 2012 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for inter alia the following orders:

1.1 that the Notice of Application dated 1 March 2021 filed vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Winding Up No WA-28PW-68-03/2021 be struck out and/or dismissed without liberty to file afresh

1.2 that the Notice of Application dated 3 May 2021 filed vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Winding Up No WA-28PW-128-03/2021 be struck out and/or dismissed without liberty to file afresh

1.3 the costs be borne by the joint liquidators of the Respondent Company (Company) Dato Ler Leng Chye and Lum Tuck Cheong (Joint Liquidators) personally whether jointly and /or severally on an indemnity basis

1.4 interest of 5% on the costs awarded

1.5 exemplary damages to be assessed against the Respondent

1.6 in the alternative, exemplary damages against the Joint Liquidators of the Company personally

[2] The grounds in support of the Motion are amongst others:

(i) the Anton Pillar Order was obtained Ex Parte against the Applicant on 16 March 2021 and was executed on 8 April 2021 which is more than 21 days after which is expressly against O 29 r 2B of the Rules of 2012

(ii) the Anton Pillar Order cannot exists on its own as a cause of action

(iii) the Company had failed to comply with the strict requirements under O 29 the Rules of 2012

(iv) the threshold for an Anton Pillar Order had not been met

Background Facts

[3] The Company, LKD Trading Sdn Bhd is a company which was wound up on 24 September 2020. Pursuant to the winding up, Ler Chen Chye and Lum Tuk Cehong were appointed as joint liquidators by the Court.

[4] There was a report prepared by the joint liquidators pursuant to s 503 of the Companies Act 2016 and it is the liquidators view that there was purported fraud committed or material facts have been concealed in relations to the Company.

[5] Premised on the same, the joint liquidators have caused the Company to commence PW 68 and obtained an Ex-Parte Anton Piller Order ("APO") against Ageson Enterprise on 16 March 2021.

[6] The APO was obtained for the purpose of gaining access to a warehouse located at No D-00-10, Pangsapuri Mawar Jaya, Jalan KP 4/5, Kota Perdana, Bandar Putra Permai, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Premise").

[7] On 8 April 2021, the APO was executed and the registered address of Ageson Enterprise at No 17-03, Q Sentral, 2A, Jalan Sentral 2, KL Sentral, 50470 Kuala Lumpur.

[8] It is the Company's contention that upon the granting of the APO and sealing of the Premise, they ought to seek for a subsequent Anton Piller Order from this Court which led to the filing of PW 128.

[9] In PW 128, the Company had commenced a similar action seeking for an Anton Piller against Ageson Enterprise and another entity named Ageson Land Sdn Bhd.

Applicant's Submissions

[10] The Applicant had submitted that in seeking the Anton Piller Order, the Company had failed to satisfy the principles of law governing an injunction and specifically an Anton Piller Injunction and the evidence taken in totality will show that the Company had abused this Court's process and have caused a miscarriage of justice.

[11] It is further submitted by the Applicant that:-

(i) as an officer of the Court, the Company's solicitors have a duty to bring to the attention of this Court the strict requirements of an ex parte injunction and the need to serve the same within 7 days and for a return date to be given within 14 day

(ii) despite the Anton Pillar Order having expired, the Company's solicitors did not inform the Applicant the status of the same but continued to execute the same

(iii) there was therefore no effective Anton Piller Order at the time of executing the same

(iv) the conduct of the Company is illegal and an abuse of Court process as well as act in contempt of Court having utilized a Court Order which h