The filing of a suit in one jurisdiction after submitting to another's jurisdiction constitutes an abuse of process, warranting dismissal of the suit and denial of an anti-suit injunction.

Introduction

[1] This judgment deals with 2 applications. The first is the application under encl 3 ("the Anti-Suit Injunction Application") filed by the Plaintiffs for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the prosecution of the action filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs in the Republic of Maldives that was commenced in 2019 ("the Maldives Suit"). The second is the application under encl 14 ("the Striking Out Application") filed by the Defendant to strike out this action filed by the Plaintiffs ("the Malaysian Suit").

[2] I dismissed the Anti-Suit Injunction Application and allowed the Striking Out Application.

Background Facts

[3] The 1st Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Maldives ("Maldives"). The 2nd to 4th Plaintiffs are the directors of the 1st Plaintiff and are permanent residents of the Maldives.

[4] The Defendant is a bank incorporated in Malaysia, and is a licensed development financial institution under the Development Financial Institution Act 2002.

[5] In 2005, by way of the Lease Agreement dated 5 May 2005, the Government of Maldives granted the 2nd Plaintiff a thirty-five (35) years lease ("Lease") over the Hondaafushi island located in South Thiladhummathee Atoll, Maldives ("Hondaafushi Island"), for the purposes of constructing and developing a luxury tourist resort ("Resort") on the island (collectively, "Project").

[6] By way of the Letter of Offer dated 26 July 2006 ("Letter of Offer") and the Facility Agreement executed between the 1st Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to grant the 1st Plaintiff a term loan amounting to USD17,600,000.00 under the Buyer Credit Facility ("Loan Facility") to part- finance the development and construction of the Project.

[7] In accordance with the express terms and conditions of the Letter of Offer and or Facility Agreement, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant executed a number of security agreements for the purpose of securing the 1st Plaintiff's performance under the Loan Facility. This includes, inter alia, the Mortgage Agreement dated 6 November 2006 ("Mortgage Agreement") executed between the 2nd Plaintiff and the Defendant, wherein the 2nd Plaintiff had granted the Defendant a first priority mortgage over the Lease of the Hondaafushi Island (including the 2nd Plaintiff's leasehold interest in the Resort).

[8] In breach of the Facility Agreement, the 1st Plaintiff failed and or neglected to service the Loan Facility in a timely manner, and a significant amount of overdue principal and or interest payment became due and payable by the 1st Plaintiff to the Defendant. Thereafter, the Loan Facility became impaired on 30 April 2010.

[9] By way of the Restructuring Agreement executed between the 1st Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the additional security agreements concurrently executed thereunder [including the Power of Attorney dated 15 July 2011 ("Power of Attorney") executed by the 2nd Plaintiff], the Defendant agreed to restructure the Loan Facility with the express agreement, among others, that the Availability Period ("AP") of the restructured loan facility would be up to 31 March 2012, and that the Project shall be completed no later than 31 March 2012 (collectively referred to as "Restructure