U MOBILE SDN BHD EXTREME BROADBAND SDN BHD

U MOBILE SDN BHD EXTREME BROADBAND SDN BHD

The appeal was dismissed because there was no concluded contract or licence (Letter of Offer unsigned) creating an obligation on defendant to permit plaintiff access; plaintiff had entered and installed equipment without permission (trespass); defendant had not interfered with or used plaintiff's equipment and had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-67-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: U Mobile Sdn Bhd; Defendant/respondent: Extreme Broadband Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-67-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction) / High Court (appeal From Sessions Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction, Specific Relief, License/letter of Offer, Technical Site Survey, Trespass, Access to Equipment
Civil Law Equity Injunctions Contract Law Property/trespass Telecommunications Regulation Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction Specific Relief +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U Mobile Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff/appellant

Extreme Broadband Sdn Bhd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction) / High Court (appeal From Sessions Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interlocutory mandatory injunction should be granted to permit plaintiff access to sites and removal of equipment
  2. 2 Whether any contractual licence or obligation existed between the parties allowing plaintiff access
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff had lawful possession or had trespassed by installing equipment without permission

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was no concluded contract or licence (Letter of Offer unsigned) creating an obligation on defendant to permit plaintiff access; plaintiff had entered and installed equipment without permission (trespass); defendant had not interfered with or used plaintiff's equipment and had indicated willingness to permit removal subject to undertakings; plaintiff failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of Sessions Court dated 8.2.2022 upheld
  • Costs awarded to respondent in the amount of RM5000.00 subject to fi alokatur