Neville Hugh Grigor v Eight Safety Consultancy Sdn. Bhd. (WA-28NCC-1183-11/2023)

The Respondent filed an application in Enclosure 7 for a Fortuna Injunction to stop the Petitioner from proceeding with this Petition.

On 12.05.2023, the Petitioner commenced a civil suit (Suit No.: WA-B52NCVC-207-05/2023) at Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court (“The main Suit”) against the Respondent/Defendant due the Defendant’s breach of obligations to pay monthly salary and to provide the Petitioner with Annual Remuneration Statements for Private Employees (“EA Forms”) for the years 2018 to 2020.

On 02.06.2023, a Judgment in Default of Appearance was entered against the Respondent (“the JID”). Pursuant to the said Judgment, the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner the sum of RM388,503.50. S/N /Lap0Xg3w0qdcvmioCGqZg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3

the timeline of the material events leading to the filing of Enclosure 7 is as follows: Event Date Petitioner’s Judgment in

Default of Appearance (“JID”)

06.2023 Winding Up Notice 26.07.2023 (served on 26.07.2023 Respondent Application to Set Aside JID dismissed 15.11.2023 Enclosure 1 21.11.2023 (served on 21.11.2023 Advertisement of Enclosure 1 20.12.2023 & 21.12.2023 Respondent of Enclosure 1 Execution pending Application to Set Aside dismissed 26.12.2023 Enclosures & & 8 26.12.2023 (Served on 03.01.2024 at 4.15 pm) Enclosure 10 (Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit 03.01.2024 (Served on 04.01.2024 at 3.22 pm) S/N /Lap0Xg3w0qdcvmioCGqZg RESPONDENT GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE FORTUNA INJUNCTION APPLICATION [5] The Respondent’s grounds are mainly:

The Petition has no chance of success

The presentation of the Petition might cause irreparable damage to the Respondent. [6] In support of the grounds in paragraph 5(a) above the Respondent sought to challenge the validity of the said JID. On the allegation that the JID irregular and allegedly improperly obtained, the Respondent submits that the Petition has no chance of success. [7] In support of the grounds in paragraph 5(b), the Respondent avers that a company called Tenaga Inara Sdn Bhd has shown it’s intention to purchase 70% equity shares in the Respondent. Thus, the winding-up proceedings if allowed to proceed, will cause irreparable damage to the Respondent. S/N /Lap0Xg3w0qdcvmioCGqZg FINDINGS OF THE COURT [8] On the Respondent’s submission that this Petition has no chance of success, I find this submission is misconceived and without merits. [9] This Petition is based on a JID which remains valid and enforceable. The Respondent’s application to set-aside the JID was dismissed and there is not appeal against the dismissal. Additionally, as at the date of the hearing of this application the time to appeal against the dismissal has lapsed. In the Court of Appeal case of Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd v Muniammah Muniandy [2011] 1 CLJ 947 the Court held that a valid and enforceable judgment is not bound to fail and cannot be considered a disputed debt. On this ground alone I find that the Respondent has failed to meet the threshold for granting a Fortuna Injunction. [10] Additionally, a Fortuna Injunction is intended to prevent the presentation of a Petition. In the present case, the Petition has been filed, served, advertised and gazetted. Thus, the alleged damage if any, would have been caused. I find it was filed too late in the day. S/N /Lap0Xg3w0qdcvmioCGqZg [11] For the reasons aforesaid, I dismiss this application with costs. Dated 11 April 2025 …………t.t….……………. Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: PRATHIB PATMANABON SOLICITORS FOR THE PETITIONER: TETUAN S.B. CHEAH & ASSOCIATES COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENER: SYED ISKANDAR SYED JAAFAR SOLICITORS FOR THE INTERVENER: TETUAN SYED ISKANDAR SYED JAAFAR Cases Referred to: ➢ Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd v Muniammah Muniandy [2011] 1 CLJ 947 Legislation Referred to: ➢ Companies Act 2016 Decision date: 5 January 2024