A party seeking an ex parte injunction must demonstrate urgency and make full and frank disclosure; failure to do so results in dismissal of the application.

[1] This is the Plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction (Enc. 8) and the Defendant's application to set-aside the ex parte interim injunction order granted by this Court on 17 March 2017 (Enc.23).

[2] After hearing the applications, I allowed the Defendant's application in Enc. 23 and dismissed the Plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction in Enc. 8. Costs was awarded to the Defendants.

[3] The full grounds of my judgment are set-out herein.

B. Background

[4] The Defendant is a Russian company established in 1997. The Defendant says that it is the proprietor and inventor of the phonon diagnostic equipment and Phonon Diagnostic Technology ("PDT").

[5] PDT is a technology that utilizes the principal that energy applied to a material and causes phonon emissions. It is used as a diagnostic method to determine the technical conditions, the presence of leaks and defects, and the residual life estimation of technical objects of a facility.

[6] The Plaintiff is a Malaysian company incorporated on 18 February 2013, a couple of weeks before the Defendant, by a letter of appointment dated 1 March 2013, appointed the Plaintiff as its exclusive agent in Malaysia to promote and market PDT in Malaysia. On or about 31 March 2013, the Defendant issued another letter of appointment to the Plaintiff and they executed an agency agreement, where the Defendant appointed the Plaintiff as its exclusive agent in Malaysia ("Agency Agreement"). The Defendant appointed the Plaintiff as its exclusive agent for Brunei, Indonesia and Thailand on 2 January 2014 and for Turkmenistan, Sultanate of Oman and South East Asia on 17 June 2014.

[7] However, about three years into the relationship, the Defendant terminated the Agency Agreement. The Defendant issued the Plaintiff a 30-day notice of termination on 24 February 2016 to terminate the Agency Agreement. The termination was accepted by the Plaintiff. By letters dated 15 March 2016,[1] the Plaintiff notified PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd and Repsol Oil & Gas Limited (formerly known as Talisman Malaysia Limited) ("Repsol") of the termination of the Agency Agreement and informed them that the Plaintiff no longer offered PDT services.

[8] The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff had, in breach of the Agency Agreement, secretly employed the Defendant's ex-employees to perform PDT services to Repsol and PETRONAS Gas Berhad ("PGB") and other oil and gas companies, without the Defendant's consent and knowledge. The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff had forged and fabricated certificates issued on the Defendant's letterhead certifying personnel unknown to the Defendant as phonon engineers qualified to perform phonon diagnostic tasks.[2] The Defendant also claims that the Plaintiff had fabricated references for ex-employees who had already left the Defendant's employ when the purported references were issued.[3] The Defendant's case is that PDT can only be performed using Phonon equipment and by certified phonon specialists or certified phonon engineers ("CPS/E") trained and certified on PDT by the Defendant. It claims that if a person is no longer employed by the Defendant, that person can no longer be a certified phonon specialist or a certified phonon engineer since the certification is done by the Defendant.

[9] The Plaintiff had appointed Bisco Integrated Services Corp (Saudi Arabia) and Berk Hill E.S. as the Plaintiff's phonon diagnostic agents in Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan respectively. The Defendant claims that these appointments were in breach of the Agency Agreement because they were done without the Defendant's knowledge and consent.

[10] The Defendant further claims that after the termination of the Ag