Claims barred by issue estoppel and limitation period must be dismissed to maintain finality in litigation.

Table of Content
1. can the court strike out a suit on specific grounds? (Para 1)
2. description of parties and their relationships regarding the confidential information. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)

[1] In this case, two defendant companies (defendants) apply in court encl no 5 (encl 5) to strike out the suit filed by the plaintiff company (plaintiff). In court encl no 20, the third party company (third party) apply to strike out this action (encl 20).

[2] Enclosures 5 and 20 raise the following questions:

(1) whether a suit can be struck out on any one or more of the following gounds:

(a) the contents of a Statement of Claim (SOC) are scandalous within the meaning of O 18 r 19(1)(b) [para (b)] of the Rules of 2012 (RC);

(b) the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit because, amongst others, the plaintiff has filed an earlier suit [Kuala Lumpur High court Civil Suit No 22(IP)-47-2011 against, among others, the third party (1st Suit)] and has obtained judgment against, amongst others, the third party after a trial (judgment);

(c) this suit is barred by an application of the issue estoppel principle, the second limb of res judicata doctrine;

(d) the plaintiffs claim for tort of breach of confidence is time-barred under s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 ( LA ); and

(e) the plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment is barred by limitation under s 6(6) LA ; and

(2) whether the third party can apply to strike out this action pursuant to O 16 rr 4(3), (4), 6, O 18 r 19(1), O 92 r 4 RC and/or the courts inherent jurisdiction.

B. Background

[3] The plaintiff is an exclusive licensee of a system developed by Keck Seng (Malaysia) Bhd and known as a "Continuous Flow Stirred Tank Reactor Anaerobic Digester System" (CSTR System). The CSTR System is applied to recover methane from treatment of palm oil mill effluents (POME).

[4] The 2nd defendant company (2nd defendant) is a public listed company which wholly owns QL Oil Sdn Bhd (QLO). QLO wholly owns the 1st defendant company (1st defendant). The 1st defendant runs a palm oil processing mill at Tawau, Sabah (Mill).

[5] The plaintiff entered into a joint venture arrangement with the third party (JV). By way of the JV, the plaintiff shared confidential information regarding the CSTR System (Confidential Information). The JV was terminated on or about 10 March 2009.

[6] The defendants wished to build a biogas power plant at the Mill which would utilise POME to generate power (Plant).

[7] On or about 18 March 2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposal to the 1st defendant to design, build and commission the Plant based on the CSTR System (the plaintiffs Proposal). Subsequently, the plaintiff was appointed by the defendants to be a consultant to apply to the Department of Environment of Sabah (DOE) to obtain DOEs approval to upgrade the capacity of the Mill to contain a POME treatment system.

[8] The 1st defendant received a proposal from the third party regarding the Plant (third partys Proposal) on 20 March 2010.

[9] On 30 April 2010, the defendants informed the plaintiff that the defendants had accepted the third partys Proposal (which was a lower bid than the plaintiffs Proposal).

[10] By an email dated 3 May 2010, the plaintiff informed the 2nd defendant that, amongst others, any unauthorised use of Confidential Information would be an infringement of the plaintiffs rights. The defendants replied by an email dated 11 May 2010 which stated, amongst others:

(1) the defendants respect intellectual property (IP) rights; and

(2) the defendants would not engage a contractor who deliberately infringes rights of a third party.

The plaintiff did not reply to this email by the defendants.

[11] The 2nd defendant obtained an indemnity dated 14 June 2010 from the third party whereby the third party agreed to indemnify the 2nd defendant against any infringement of IP right with regard to the third partys system (Third Partys System) which would be installed at the Plant (1st Indemnity).

[12] By a letter dated 19 October 201

Click Here to Read the rest of this document