GCH RETAIL (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 667035-P) PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT : 317001-A)

GCH RETAIL (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 667035-P) PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT : 317001-A)

The court found that serious issues requiring trial were disclosed, that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo because plaintiff would suffer substantial commercial and reputational prejudice if ejected, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and plaintiff gave undertakings to continue paying rent and to provide an undertaking as to damages; accordingly an interim injunction restraining the defendant from acting on the termination notice was granted.

Citation
WA-24NCVC-1804-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant; Defendant in High Court Proceedings: Pacific Trustees Berhad; Respondent; Plaintiff in High Court Proceedings: GCH Retail (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 December 2020
Case Number
WA-24NCVC-1804-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Injunction Application (high Court)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff restraining Defendant from acting on the 18.9.2020 termination notice; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Lease Renewal, Assignment of Tenancy, Termination Notice, Balance of Convenience, Status Quo
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Commercial Interim Injunction Lease Renewal Assignment of Tenancy +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacific Trustees Berhad

Appellant; Defendant in High Court Proceedings

GCH Retail (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent; Plaintiff in High Court Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Injunction Application (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease had been validly renewed
  2. 2 Whether a binding lease agreement existed between the parties given lack of consensus on material terms
  3. 3 Whether the termination notice dated 18.9.2020 was valid

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that serious issues requiring trial were disclosed, that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo because plaintiff would suffer substantial commercial and reputational prejudice if ejected, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and plaintiff gave undertakings to continue paying rent and to provide an undertaking as to damages; accordingly an interim injunction restraining the defendant from acting on the termination notice was granted.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff restraining Defendant from acting on the 18.9.2020 termination notice; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Defendant and its servants, agents or otherwise are restrained from acting on the Notice of Termination dated 18 September 2020 or giving effect to that Notice pending disposal of the writ action WA-24NCVC-1804-10/2020.
  • Defendant and its servants, agents or otherwise shall when communicating with third parties state that the termination of the Plaintiff's tenancy is pending decision of the Court.