JUDGMENT

Ahmad ShahrirMohd Salleh J:

(Withdrawal Of Action With Liberty To File Afresh)

Introduction

[1] This is the plaintiff's application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh pursuant to O 21 r 3 of the Rules of 2012. The application was made orally following this Court 's decision on 23 June 2025 whereby the plaintiff's application for an inter partes injunction was dismissed and the defendants' application to set aside the ex parte injunction was allowed. Both decisions were made mainly on the ground that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to maintain the proceedings.

[2] The defendants oppose the grant of liberty to file afresh. The defendants contend that the proceedings have reached an advanced stage, that they have gained procedural advantages which would be lost, and that the plaintiff should not be allowed to withdraw after having subjected them to protracted litigation.

[3] Having heard the submissions of both parties, I allow the plaintiff's application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh for the reasons set out below.

Background

[4] The plaintiff commenced this suit against the defendants in respect of a contract between the 2nd Defendant with PMX Malaysia Sdn Bhd for the construction and completion of a data security system for RM23,000,000.00. The plaintiff was not a shareholder or director of the 2nd Defendant but claimed an interest through his shareholding in Shine Technology Pte Ltd, a Singapore company which held shares in the 2nd Defendant. It is the plaintiff's case that he played a pivotal role in securing the contract.

[5] On 17 April 2025, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte injunction and the inter partes hearing was fixed on 1 May 2025. The defendants subsequently filed Encl 20 to set aside the ex parte injunction. On 2 May 2025, the defendants filed Encl 37 under O 14A of the Rules of 2012 seeking a determination on whether the plaintiff possessed locus standi and whether the action constituted an abuse of process.

[6] On 23 June 2025, this Court delivered its decision dismissing the plaintiff's inter partes injunction and allowing the defendants' application to set aside the ex parte injunction. The decision was mainly based on the finding that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to maintain the proceedings as he was neither a registered shareholder nor a director of the 2nd Defendant. The Court further directed that damages suffered by the defendants as a result of the ex parte injunction be assessed.

[7] Following that decision, the plaintiff seeks to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh.

Analysis and Findings

The Defendants' Contentions

[8] The defendants advance several arguments opposing the grant of liberty to file afresh. They may be briefly stated as such:

(a) first, the defendants contend that the matter had reached an advanced stage and that withdrawal with liberty should not be permitted. The defendants rely on the fact that written submissions for O 14A application had already been filed, that several interlocutory applications had been determined and that their defences had been fully disclosed,

(b) second, the defendants invoke the doctrine of dominus litis, arguing that having raised the issue of locus standi from the outset and the defendants are entitled to a final determination of the matter, and

(c) third, the defendants contend that granting liberty to file afresh would allow the plaintiff to circumvent the res judicata effect and to institute successive proceedings once the alleged legal incapacity has been remedied.

Whether Proceedings Is at an Advanced Stage

[9] In Majlis Peguam Malaysia & Ors v. Raja Segaran S Krishnan; [2002] 3 MLJ 155; [2002] 3 CLJ 370; [2004] 6 AMR 277, the Court of Appeal ruled that what amounts to an "advanced stage" depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.

[10] In the present case, although several interlocutory applications had been filed and determined, no trial had commenced and no evidence on the merits h