PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN BAY AVENUE 1. ) LEONG WOOI KIT 2. ) LIM CHIN LENG 3. ) PO CHUN LAM (JONATHAN) PIHAK TERKILAN RCC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN BAY AVENUE 1. ) LEONG WOOI KIT 2. ) LIM CHIN LENG 3. ) PO CHUN LAM (JONATHAN) PIHAK TERKILAN RCC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

The injunction application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction, damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favoured refusing relief to avoid harm to residents and management functions, and the plaintiff had not disclosed the existence of prior Sessions Court injunctions when seeking relief.

Citation
PA-22NCvC-174-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue; Respondent (defendant): Leong Wooi Kit; Respondent (defendant): Lim Chin Leng; Respondent (defendant): Poh Chu Lam (Jonathan)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 March 2022
Case Number
PA-22NCvC-174-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (interlocutory Injunction) / Interlocutory Application Dismissed (with Appeal Against Dismissal)
Outcome
Application for injunctive relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Mandatory Injunction, Ex Parte Injunction, Balance of Convenience, Duty of Full and Fair Disclosure, Commissioner of Buildings Orders, Validity of Agm/egm
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Equity Strata Management Law Administrative Law Interim Injunction Mandatory Injunction Ex Parte Injunction Balance of Convenience +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue

Plaintiff (appellant)

Leong Wooi Kit

Respondent (defendant)

Lim Chin Leng

Respondent (defendant)

Poh Chu Lam (Jonathan)

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (interlocutory Injunction) / Interlocutory Application Dismissed (with Appeal Against Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mandatory/interim injunction should be granted to restore control of management and bank signatories to the newly elected committee
  2. 2 Whether damages are an adequate remedy such that injunctive relief should be refused
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff failed to disclose an existing injunction obtained in Sessions Court when applying ex parte/inter partes

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction, damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favoured refusing relief to avoid harm to residents and management functions, and the plaintiff had not disclosed the existence of prior Sessions Court injunctions when seeking relief.

Court Disposition

Application for injunctive relief dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction sought by the Plaintiff dismissed
  • Costs in the cause awarded to the Defendants