The Malaysian High Court has jurisdiction over foreign entities if the cause of action occurs within Malaysia, even if the defendants are foreign.

[1] In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court. This judgment concerns the appeal by the 1st defendant against the decision of the Court of Appeal made on 4 July 2013 reversing the decision of the High Court in favour of the 1st defendant.

[2] The background facts leading to the appeal before us are these. The plaintiff is a limited liability company with "seat" at Quai Jeanrenaud 3, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor and/or common law owner and/or beneficial owner in Malaysia of the MARLBORO and MARLBORO Roof Lines trade marks (collectively referred to as the "MARLBORO marks") for tobacco, raw or manufactured; and other tobacco products, which is valid and subsisting at all material times. The plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the MARLBORO marks in relation to cigarettes.

[3] The 1st defendant is a business with the last known address at No 51, Jaffar Waly Street, Cairo, Egypt.

[4] The 2nd defendant is a company incorporated under the law of Malaysia with a registered office at 4391, Jalan Hang Choon Thian, Butterworth, Penang.

[5] The 3rd defendant is a company incorporated under the law of Malaysia with a registered office at 771A, Jalan Teluk Batu 1, Batu 4, Off Jalan Kebun, Shah Alam, Selangor.

[6] The 4th defendant is a company incorporated under the law of Malaysia with a registered office at Tingkat 4, Bangunan Setia 8, 15, Lorong Dungun, Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur.

[7] The 5th defendant is a company incorporated under the law of Malaysia with a registered office at 568-9-20, 9th Floor, Kompleks Mutiara, 3% Mile, Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur.

[8] On 19 December 2011, the Royal Malaysian Customs ("RMC") detained and searched 12 containers which were on board the vessel CSAV Pyrennes berthed at Westports, Klang. The RMC did so on the basis that although the containers were declared as Omani Marble, its investigation revealed that the containers contained cigarettes. Out of the 12 containers detained, RMC's search revealed that 10 of them ("MALIMBO containers") contained MALIMBO branded cigarettes, and not Omani Marble as declared. The contents of these containers had been transhipped from Vietnam through Penang Port and were to be shipped from Westports, Port Klang onwards to Egypt. The RMC seized the MALIMBO containers containing the MALIMBO cigarettes for investigation for an offence of fraudulent evasion or attempted fraudulent evasion of custom duty under s 135(1)(g) of the Customs Act 1967 .

[9] The 1st defendant was the consignor and/or owner and/or the beneficial owner of the MALIMBO cigarettes and/or the MALIMBO containers and had made a claim for the release of the MALIMBO containers.

[10] The 2nd defendant was the consignee of the MALIMBO containers, and had also represented itself to be fully authorised to take all actions necessary in respect of the MALIMBO containers. It had made a claim for the release of those containers.

[11] The 3rd defendant had a temporary cigarette import licence and is the consignee of the MALIMBO containers from Penang Port to Port Klang and/or from Port Klang to Egypt and/or from Penang Port to Egypt. The 3rd defendant was due to ship and/or forward the MALIMBO containers to Egypt from Malaysia.

[12] The 4th defendant was the shipping agent of the MALIMBO containers from Vietnam to Penang and/or from Penang to Port Klang.

[13] The 5th defendant was the shipping agent of the MALIMBO containers from Penang to Port Klang and/or due from Port Klang to Egypt.

[14] Pursuant to its investigation, the RMC offered a compound of RM30,000.00 for an offence of making false declaration under s 133(1)(a)