FTC HOLDING SDN BHD 1. ) ISARB MEDIA SDN BHD 2. ) ISA BIN BATHARUL ZAMAN

FTC HOLDING SDN BHD 1. ) ISARB MEDIA SDN BHD 2. ) ISA BIN BATHARUL ZAMAN

There is a serious question to be tried; the court will preserve interim relief to prevent the arbitral process being rendered nugatory but will limit the freezing order to the precise pleaded sum of RM3,359,005.86 and refer the substantive dispute to arbitration, balancing protection of the plaintiff's claim against undue prejudice to the defendants.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-500-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: FTC HOLDING SDN BHD; First Defendant: ISARB MEDIA SDN BHD; Second Defendant: ISA BIN BATHARUL ZAMAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 December 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-500-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (interlocutory) / Inter‑parte Hearing on Interim Injunction and Application to Set Aside/suspend Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory applications disposed: interim injunction maintained in varied form and substantive dispute referred to arbitration; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Freezing Order, Arbitration Clause, Doctrine of Illegality, Frustration, Restitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Arbitration Contract Law Equity (injunctions) Restitution/unjust Enrichment Interim Injunction Freezing Order Arbitration Clause +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FTC HOLDING SDN BHD

Plaintiff

ISARB MEDIA SDN BHD

First Defendant

ISA BIN BATHARUL ZAMAN

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (interlocutory) / Inter‑parte Hearing on Interim Injunction and Application to Set Aside/suspend Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a serious question to be tried exists
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order is proportionate and properly limited
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration clause ousts court jurisdiction for interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried; the court will preserve interim relief to prevent the arbitral process being rendered nugatory but will limit the freezing order to the precise pleaded sum of RM3,359,005.86 and refer the substantive dispute to arbitration, balancing protection of the plaintiff's claim against undue prejudice to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications disposed: interim injunction maintained in varied form and substantive dispute referred to arbitration; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Enclosure 4 and Enclosure 14 are heard and disposed of together on an inter‑parte basis
  • The interim injunction previously granted is maintained but varied, limiting the freezing order strictly to RM3,359,005.86