Share:

Print

7 June 2024

* To read the full judgement of Berhero Pty. Ltd v Senibina Sentral Sdn Bhd [2024] NSWSC 459, please click HERE.


Our Partner, Idza Hajar binti Ahmad Idzam and Legal Associates, Lee Sheen Yee and Siti Sarah Kamaruzaman from Zul Rafique & partners’ Litigation Practice Group have assisted in the legal strategy and navigation in obtaining an Anti-Suit Injunction (“Anti-Suit Injunction”) in the recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the case of Berhero Pty. Ltd v Senibina Sentral Sdn Bhd [2024] NSWSC 459 (“Australian Proceedings”). The Defendants in the Australian Proceedings are represented by Swaab.


In light of the Anti-Suit Injunction granted, the Plaintiff is now restrained from taking any further steps directly and/or indirectly in the two (2) on-going court proceedings commenced by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the High Court of Malaya (“Malaysian Proceedings”). In the Malaysian Proceedings, the Plaintiff has, amongst others sought for a declaratory relief for the registration of charges premised on agreements which are currently the subject matter of dispute in an ongoing proceeding between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

In granting the Anti-Suit Injunction, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has considered the expert reports issued by the independent third parties pertaining to the Malaysian laws produced by both Plaintiff and Defendants. The Supreme Court of New South Wales has held as follows:-


Orders
98       Therefore, I make the following orders:
 
(1) The Court notes that the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants give the usual undertaking as to damages.

(2) 
The plaintiff, by itself, its servants, its agents or howsoever otherwise, is restrained until further order, from taking any further step directly or indirectly in the following proceedings:

 
(i) Proceedings WA-24NCvC-5741-12/2023 in the High Court in Malaysia as against the fourth and fifth defendants (the Low Teo registration of charges application); and

(ii) 
Proceedings WA/24NCvC-569-02/2024, being an application for registration of charges in respect of properties owned by Senibina Murni SDN BHD and Senibina Sentral SDN BHD (Senibina registration of charge application)
 
save for discontinuing those proceedings.
 
(3) The plaintiff, by itself, its servants, its agents or howsoever otherwise, is restrained until further order from commencing any further proceedings against the defendants in relation to rights said to arise out of the alleged agreements between the plaintiff and the defendants claimed in the plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim filed in this Court on 5 May 2023.

(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion.”

This case involves cross-border litigation issues and risks. The decision highlights the importance of having solicitors with cross border litigation experience, experience in risk assessment and mitigation in order to strategically manage concurrent and multiple disputes across jurisdictions.

Please email your details to [email protected] if you would like to subscribe to our Knowledge Centre.

Let's Connect!
LINKEDIN: Zul Rafique & Partners
INSTAGRAM: @zrplaw