Azlan Sulaiman JC:

(Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections to encl 244)

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiffs raise two preliminary objections to the Defendants' Application in encl 244 ("the Defendants' Application") to set aside the Anton Pillar Order made ex-parte on 5 August 2020 ("the APO") and the ad-interim Order given on 25 August 2020 extending the operation of the APO until the inter-parte s hearing of the Plaintiffs' Application for the APO ("the ad interim Order").

[2] The preliminary objections are that there was inordinate delay in the filing of the Defendants' Application, and that it is defeated by issue estoppel, given the Defendants' earlier applications in encls 15, 26 and 41 that also involved the APO. Enclosure 15, by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, was to set aside Part A of the APO (the protective order); encl 26, by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, was to stay execution of Part B of the APO (the unboxing of the items seized under the APO); and encl 41 by all of the Defendants, was to dismiss the whole action with costs and discharge the APO and the ad interim Order.

Analysis And Decision

Delay

[3] This preliminary objection boils down to whether the Defendants could