1. ) Mutiara Securities Services Sdn Bhd 2. ) Rayan Sanjev Barr Kumarakulasinghe 3. ) Santhi R. Mahendra Rajah Steven Gregory

1. ) Mutiara Securities Services Sdn Bhd 2. ) Rayan Sanjev Barr Kumarakulasinghe 3. ) Santhi R. Mahendra Rajah Steven Gregory

The court refused the plaintiffs' committal application (Kand.36) and granted the defendant's application to set aside the ex‑parte orders (Kand.73) because plaintiffs failed to establish contempt to the criminal standard and there were material defects and disputes over service and clarity of the injunction terms;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-23NCvC-24-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: MUTIARA SECURITY SERVICES SDN BHD; Plaintiff: RAYAN SANJEV BARR KUMARAKULASINGHE; Plaintiff: SANTHI R. MAHENDRA RAJAH; Defendant: STEVEN GREGORY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 August 2025
Case Number
BA-23NCvC-24-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil: Defamation and Contempt Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications (leave to Commence Committal and Application to Set Aside Ex‑parte Orders)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' committal application (Kand.36) dismissed; Defendant's application to set aside ex‑parte orders (Kand.73) allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Service of Process, Contempt, Leave to Commence Committal, Status Quo, Costs
Defamation Contempt of Court Injunctions Civil Procedure Interim Injunction Service of Process Contempt Leave to Commence Committal +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MUTIARA SECURITY SERVICES SDN BHD

Plaintiff

RAYAN SANJEV BARR KUMARAKULASINGHE

Plaintiff

SANTHI R. MAHENDRA RAJAH

Plaintiff

STEVEN GREGORY

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Defamation and Contempt Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications (leave to Commence Committal and Application to Set Aside Ex‑parte Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant breached interim injunction and is contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether service of the injunction and cause papers on defendant was effective
  3. 3 Whether terms of the interim injunction were sufficiently certain

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the plaintiffs' committal application (Kand.36) and granted the defendant's application to set aside the ex‑parte orders (Kand.73) because plaintiffs failed to establish contempt to the criminal standard and there were material defects and disputes over service and clarity of the injunction terms; the defendant's explanations were satisfactory and committal at this interlocutory stage would be unnecessary and disproportionate to liberty interests. The court nevertheless preserved a mutual interlocutory restraint on publishing case‑related material pending full trial and awarded costs against the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' committal application (Kand.36) dismissed; Defendant's application to set aside ex‑parte orders (Kand.73) allowed

Orders

  • Kand.36 (leave to commence committal) dismissed with costs of RM3,500.00 (subject to taxation) to be paid jointly by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant
  • Kand.73 allowed; ex‑parte orders set aside and costs of RM3,500.00 (subject to taxation) to be paid jointly by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant