JUDGMENT

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiffs' claim for declarations and injunctive relief (anti-suit injunction) against the defendants to restrain them from prosecuting their USA suit and/or further to instruct their attorneys in the USA in proceedings with or continue to prosecute their USA suit. There are also prayers for general and special damages, interests, costs etc. The claim of the plaintiffs are primarily based on an allegation of employment contract which the defendants' dispute.

[2] At the commencement of the hearing, parties have agreed that the case can be heard by way of: (i) witness statement for examination in chief; (ii) preliminary cross-examination witness statement, with full liberty to further cross-examine orally (for purposes of cross-examination); (iii) preliminary re-examination statement with full liberty to further re-examination if there is further oral examination. The court is extremely grateful to the parties for agreeing to such a mode as the preliminary cross-examination witness statement will save much of the court's time to deal with peripheral matters and for all practical purposes, preliminary cross-examination witness statement will stand as interrogatories and answers thereto only, as the right of oral cross-examination to the litigant is preserved during the whole trial.

Brief Facts (Plaintiffs' Version)

[3] The plaintiffs say:(i) the plaintiffs were at all material times engaged in the supply of manpower to oil and gas companies worldwide. The 1st defendant was employed by the plaintiffs to work as a stalking machine operator with STOLT Inc., a company registered at Bahamas, such work to be carried out at the Gulf of Mexico;(ii) the 1st defendant had induced the plaintiffs to employ him and to enter into an employment agreement dated the 20th day of April 2001 by making the following representations: (a) that the 1st defendant was never awarded benefits from industrial injury or illness, (b) that he was never treated for depression, (c) that he was never treated as an alcoholic,(iii) the aforesaid representation was false in that: (a) the 1st defendant was a crew member of a construction Barge DB29 which capsized near China in 1991, (b) that as result of the said accident, the 1st defendant developed a post traumatic stress disorder and became an alcoholic, (c) that the 1st defendant had filed a personal injury suit arising from the said accident in Civil Action No. 91-3016 in the Eastern District of Louisiana District court, (d) that the 1st defendant was awarded, paid and received (an out of court settlement) in civil action No. 91-3016 a substantial sum of US$220,000; (iv) had the 1st defendant disclosed that he had received benefits from industrial injury or illness, the plaintiffs would not have employed him and entered into an employment agreement with him.

The plaintiffs say as per their original statement of claim that they are entitled inter alia as prayed for:

(i) a declaration that the Employment Agreement is null and void.

(ii) an injunction against the defendants whether by themselves, their servants agents or otherwise howsoever called be restrained from prosecuting their US Suit and/or to further instruct their Attorneys in the United States of America in proceeding with or continuing to prosecute the US Suit;

(iii) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to be fully entitled to be indemnified by the defendants against all claims and sums as may be ordered or awarded in the United States of America District court at Galveston Country, State of Texas in Cause No. 03 CV0576 10th (for brevity "the US Suit");

(iv) special damages in the sum of RM302,600.

(v) general damages to be assessed;

(vi) interest thereon at 8% p.a., pursuant to s. 11 Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67) from, the date of summons until judgment and thereafter at 8% p.a. until full settlement;

(vii) costs;

(vii) such further or other reliefs as this Honourable court deems