The court emphasized that an injunction may be denied if the applicant's conduct disentitles them from relief under the Specific Relief Act, particularly when no new circumstances arise.

(Enclosure 42)

[1] In the matter before me, the Plaintiffs herein being Pestech Sdn Bhd ("P1") and Pestech International Bhd ("P2") ("Plaintiffs") have applied to this Court via encl 42 (encl 42) for an Erinford injunction to restrain the Defendant, either personally and/or through its agents and/or servants, be restrained from initiating, continuing, maintaining, or taking any further action in the arbitration proceedings initiated through the Notice of Commencement of Arbitration Proceedings dated 18 October 2023 until final and complete disposal of the Plaintiff's Appeal on the dismissal of encl 3.

Brief Background Facts

[2] On 7 December 2024, the Plaintiffs' filed an application for an "Anti- Arbitration Injunction" ("AAI") in encl 3 primarily to injunct any further steps from being taken in the arbitration proceedings that had been commenced by the Defendant against the First Plaintiff pending full disposal of the Plaintiffs' Writ in encl 1.

[3] On 11 April 2025, this Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Application for an AAI in encl 3.

[4] On 6 May 2025, the Plaintiffs' filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal following the dismissal of encl 3. Subsequently, an application for an Erinford Injunction was filed by the Plaintiffs' in encl 42.

Court's Findings

[5] The Plaintiffs have submitted in support of encl 42 that they have demonstrated that there is a likelihood of a successful appeal being rendered nugatory as they have lodged an appeal vide Appeal No. W-02(IM)(C)-807-05/2025 (Appeal 807) against the dismissal of encl 3 i.e the Plaintiffs application for an injunction restraining the Defendants from inter alia continuing or taking any further action in the arbitration proceedings initiated through the Notice of Commencement of Arbitration dated 18 October 2023 until final disposal of this Civil Suit before this Court (Enclosure 3), which has yet to be disposed by the Court of Appeal.

[6] It is further submitted by the Plaintiffs that:

6.1 if encl 42 is dismissed, the Defendant will proceed to pursue the pending arbitration proceedings against P1 which will eventually render Appeal 807 nugatory;

6.2 the Appeal 807 is a statutory right and should be protected; and

6.3 damages is not an adequate remedy.

[7] On the other hand the Defendant has submitted that encl 42 is a blatant abuse to collaterally undermine the otherwise consensually submitted to and recognised 2023 Agreed Consolidated Arbitrations i.e the Defendant's Notice of Arbitration dated 11 September 2023 against P1 (PTSB Arbitration) seeking inter alia a declaration that the Notice of Termination for default was valid and where P1 had filed its response to the Notice of Arbitration and secondly the Defendant's Notice of Arbitration dated 18 October 2023 against P2 (PIB Arbitration) seeking relief on amongst others a declaration that P2 has breached and/or defaulted under the Parent Guarantee and where P2 has also had filed its response to the Notice of Arbitration. Both the said PTSB Arbitration and PIB Arbitration were then consensually consolidated with approval of AIAC on 6 December 2023 (2023 Agreed Consolidated Arbitrations).

[8] Based on the chronology of events in the matter herein before this Court, this Court had on 11 April 2025 dismissed encl 3 for amongst others the grounds that this Court 'would not permit the proceedings to stifle the 2023 Agreed Consolidated Arbitrations' and that the same was an abuse of Court process.

[9] I also observed that on 7 May 2025 the Plaintiffs then proceeded to file this Erinford injunction under encl 42 but had also proceeded on 8 Ma