JUDGMENT

Zaleha Yusof FCJ:

Brief Background Facts

[1] The respondents had filed a suit (suit 42) at the High Court against the applicants for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and a permanent injunction. Before the Statement of Claim was served on the applicants, the respondents obtained an Anton Pillar Order and a Protective Order against the appellants. Both orders were granted ex parte by the High Court.

[2] The applicants' applications to set aside the said two Orders and to dismiss the suit for failure to serve the Statement of Claim were dismissed by the High Court. However, the High Court directed the respondents to serve the applicants with a redacted Statement of Claim which the respondents did on 21 October 2020.

[3] The applicants' appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said decision of the High Court was also dismissed on 25 February 2021.

[4] Aggrieved, the applicants filed a Notice of Motion dated 9 March 2021 (Motion of 9 March 2021) for leave to appeal to the Federal Court pursuant to subsection 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91). The said motion of 9 March 2021 was heard on 22 July 2021 before a single Judge of this Court pursuant to subsection 97(3) of Act 91. The single Judge dismissed the said motion of 9 March 2021 after hearing the submissions of the parties.

[5] Now before us, the applicants filed this Notice of Motion in enclosure [47] pursuant to subsection 97(4) to discharge the order of the single Judge dated 22 July 2021.

[6] Enclosure [47] was fixed for hearing before us on 15 March 2022.

Issue

[7] Whether there is any burden imposed on an aggrieved party against whom the decision by a single Judge was made under subsection 97(3) of Act 91, to show justification before his application under subsection 97(4) of the same Act can be allowed.