JUDGMENT

Rozana Ali Yusoff J:

A. Background

[1] This is the defendant's application under encl 431 pursuant to O 14A and/or O 33 Rules of 2012, for determination of the following questions of law and/or preliminary issues:

[a] Sama ada prinsip Res Judicata terpakai di mana plaintif dilarang mempertikaikan isu-isu yang telah dibicarakan dan diputuskan selepas perbicaraan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang dalam Guaman Sivil No: 22-102-2007;

[b] Sama ada Mahkamah Mulia ini terikat oleh keputusan YA Datuk Vazeer Alam Bin Mydin Meera dalam Guaman Sivil No: 22-102-2007; dan

[c] Sama ada isu dan/atau alegasi fakta berkenaan pencurian dan/atau ambil alih maklumat rahsia (confidential information) termasuk formula dan juga apa-apa aset berkenaan Shigen Polycolor S/B (Defendan Ke3) yang merupakan subject matter dalam guaman sivil ini telah dibangkitkan oleh plaintif dalam Guaman Sivil No: 22-102-2007.

[2] Briefly, the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendants is premised on allegations of fraud, unlawful conduct, and breach of fiduciary duty by the 1st defendant (D1), arising from the alleged wrongful transfer of the business and assets of the 3rd defendant (D3) to the 4th defendant (D4). The assets in question include the colour-coding processes and the proprietary formulae used in the manufacture of pigments, which are said to have been misappropriated, thereby causing loss and damage to D3. This action also seeks to recover and restore to D3 the said assets which rightfully belong to it.

[3] The primary basis advanced by the defendants in filing encl 431 was for the Court to determine certain questions of law pursuant to , on the premise that a few core issues—already adjudicated in previous proceedings—could dispose of the present suit in its entirety. The Defendants contended that the majority of the claims advanced by the plaintiff had been fully tried and determined by the High Court before YA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera (as he then was) in Suit No 22-102-2007 ("Suit 102").

[4] Suit No 22-102-2007 ("Suit 102") was instituted by D4 against the plaintiff's siblings (the Tan siblings), seeking, inter alia, reliefs in respect of the alleged wrongful and unlawful use of confidential information purportedly owned by, or to which D4 was beneficially entitled. The confidential information in question pertained to pigment preparation products, including but not limited to those used in candles, plastics, rubber, ink, paint, textiles, colour masterbatch for the plastics industry, colour compounds, dry blends, colour matching, design, and related services, (confidential information)

[5] On 27 June 2012, following the conclusion of a full trial, YA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera (as he then was) delivered judgment in favour of D4. The Court granted two (2) injunctions restraining the Tan siblings and the plaintiff from further misusing the confidential information found to belong to D4. In the grounds of judgment, the learned judge held that the Tan siblings, acting under the direction and orchestration of the plaintiff, were liable for collusion and for the wrongful misappropriation of confidential information, including formulae, which were found to be beneficially owned by D4.

[6] The Defendants contended that the issues underpinning the plaintiff's claims in the present action had been conclusively adjudicated by the High Court in Suit 102. The Defendants further submitted that the institution of the present proceedings constitutes an impermissible attempt to re-agitate matters that have been finally determined, and is therefore barred by the doctrine of *res judicata*.

[7] The Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted that the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No P-02(IM)(NCVC)-1280-07/2022 ("Appeal 1280") had allowed the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant's application to strike out the present suit. The Court of Appeal accordingly ordered that the matter be remitted to the High Court for a full trial, in light o