Fivestar Luxury Sdn Bhd 1. ) Daya Intelek Usahasama Sdn Bhd 2. ) Ageson Development Sdn Bhd (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai Prinsiptek Properties Sdn Bhd) 3. ) Foo Chu Jong 4. ) Foo Chu Pak 5. ) FIVESTAR LUXURY SDN BHD 6. ) Tan Buck Lai 7. )

Fivestar Luxury Sdn Bhd 1. ) Daya Intelek Usahasama Sdn Bhd 2. ) Ageson Development Sdn Bhd (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai Prinsiptek Properties Sdn Bhd) 3. ) Foo Chu Jong 4. ) Foo Chu Pak 5. ) FIVESTAR LUXURY SDN BHD 6. ) Tan Buck Lai 7. )

Enclosure 135 is inadmissible because it does not raise any new serious question to be tried, affidavit evidence for the injunction proceeding had been exhausted and submissions had commenced, and the Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file the additional affidavit as required under the authority of Lum Choon Realty; therefore Enclosure 135 cannot be used or referred to in the injunction application.

Citation
PA-22NCvC-61-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: FIVESTAR LUXURY SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: DAYA INTELEK USAHASAMA SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: AGESON DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 October 2023
Case Number
PA-22NCvC-61-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit for Specific Performance, Removal of Private Caveat and Damages With Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interim Injunction Hearing — Ruling on Admissibility of Additional Affidavit (enclosure 135)
Outcome
Court refused to admit Enclosure 135 into the affidavit evidence for the injunction application; injunction hearing to continue without it.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Interim Injunction, Admissibility of Affidavit, Leave to File Affidavit, Private Caveat, Fiduciary Duty
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Equity Civil Procedure Injunctions Company Law Specific Performance Interim Injunction Admissibility of Affidavit +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FIVESTAR LUXURY SDN BHD

Plaintiff

DAYA INTELEK USAHASAMA SDN BHD

1st Defendant

AGESON DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit for Specific Performance, Removal of Private Caveat and Damages With Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interim Injunction Hearing — Ruling on Admissibility of Additional Affidavit (enclosure 135)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an additional affidavit filed after the injunction proceeding commenced and after affidavit evidence was exhausted is admissible without leave of court
  2. 2 Whether the additional affidavit raises a new serious question to be tried or merely reinforces existing evidence
  3. 3 Whether admitting the affidavit would prejudice the opposite party or require an affidavit in reply

Ratio Decidendi

Enclosure 135 is inadmissible because it does not raise any new serious question to be tried, affidavit evidence for the injunction proceeding had been exhausted and submissions had commenced, and the Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file the additional affidavit as required under the authority of Lum Choon Realty; therefore Enclosure 135 cannot be used or referred to in the injunction application.

Court Disposition

Court refused to admit Enclosure 135 into the affidavit evidence for the injunction application; injunction hearing to continue without it.

Orders

  • Enclosure 135 is not to be used or referred to in the Injunction Application proceeding
  • Injunction Application proceeding to resume with further arguments based only on affidavit evidence that was produced at the start of the proceeding