From almost 100 years ago these Royals down South have been lying, scamming and cheating others...not only in Johor but anywhere they are people to be lied, scammed and cheated! This from England circa 1885.
References:  1 QB 149 Coram: Lord Esher MR, Lopes LJ, Kay LJ Ratio: In 1885 the Sultan of Johore came to England, and according to the plaintiff, Miss Mighell, took the name Albert Baker and promised to marry her. Held: The Sultan was entitled to immunity even though up to the time of suit ‘he has perfectly concealed the fact that he is a sovereign, and has acted as a private individual.’ ‘When once there is the authoritative certificate of the Queen through her minister of state as to the status of another sovereign, that in the courts of this country is decisive’. To an argument that he had waived this immunity, the court held that the only way that a sovereign could waive immunity was by submitting to jurisdiction in the face of the court as, for example, by appearance to a writ. If the sovereign ignored the issue of the writ, the court was under a duty of its own motion to recognise his immunity from suit. Jurisdiction: England and Wales This case is cited by:
Cited – Aksionairnoye Obschestvo A M Luther v James Sagor and Co CA ( 3 KB 532) A court is required to recognise a foreign state’s dealings with private proprietary rights within its jurisdiction. An English court will recognise the compulsory acquisition law of a foreign state and will recognise the change of title to property . .
Cited – Aziz v Aziz and others Rev 1 CA (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 712, Times 17-Jul-07) The claimant sought return of recordings and of money paid to the defendant through an alleged fraud or threats. She was the former wife of the Sultan of Brunei and head of state, who now sought an order requiring the court to protect his identity . .
Cited – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC (Bailii,  UKSC 31, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0040) The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .