Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adequacy of damages

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

PUNCAK GALI HARMONI SDN BHD EMRAIL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried but failed on discretionary grounds: damages are essentially adequate for the commercial losses alleged, the injunction sought was broad and would impose substantial operational restraints on a public railway rehabilitation project, the balance of convenience favoured refusal, public interest reinforced that conclusion, and no narrower neutral order could be fashioned; therefore the interim injunction (Enclosure 3) is dismissed.
16 Dec 2025

BANDAR UTAMA CITY ASSETS SDN. BHD. 1. ) ROTOL FOOD-CHAIN (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) Chua Kah Seng 3. ) Caleen Chua Yen Keng

Citation

BA-12A-27-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-27-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was a serious triable issue whether the Tenant validly exercised the conditional renewal option (dependent on absence of arrears and performance of obligations); damages would not be an adequate remedy for the Tenant because premature eviction could be irreversible; the balance of convenience favoured preserving possession pending trial; therefore the Sessions Court correctly granted an interlocutory injunction and the appeal was dismissed.
12 Dec 2025

Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn Bhd Motor Fuel (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

JA-24NCvC-259-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-259-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff validly exercised the unambiguous contractual option under Clause 1.4 by written notice within the prescribed three‑month period; the agreement contains no term disqualifying renewal for the alleged breaches, and damages would be inadequate because loss of brand recognition, customer association and goodwill cannot be quantified; therefore specific performance and a declaration of renewal were granted.
17 Nov 2025

FERRERO S.P.A. 1. ) KOON BROTHER SDN. BHD. 2. ) MY BISCUIT MARKETING

Citation

WA-22IP-5-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-5-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the material before the Court the Plaintiff established a bona fide serious issue to be tried on trademark infringement (s54(2)(b) TMA 2019), infringement of well-known marks (s76 TMA 2019) and passing off; damages would not be an adequate remedy because harm to goodwill and distinctiveness is irreparable and transnational; the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo by granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing in the Unauthorised Products pending trial; Plaintiff to pay costs RM10,000.
31 Oct 2025

1. ) AHMAD SAHRIN BIN HUSSIN 2. ) AHMAD ZULFAISAL BIN JAMALUDIN 1. ) MUHAMMAD BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) AZMARK HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-404-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-404-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The injunction was refused and the appeal dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to disclose a bona fide serious question to be tried, lacked locus standi as they had divested their interests, damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, and equitable discretion should not be exercised in the plaintiffs' favour given omissions amounting to unclean hands.
7 Oct 2025

SAYAP JAYA SDN. BHD. SEJATI TROPIKA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-269-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-269-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the dispute concerned land and there was credible evidence of steps by the plaintiff to sell/alienate the land and to remove the caveat, the court found special circumstances and granted a stay of execution pending disposal of the appeal to prevent irreversible dissipation that would render the appeal futile; costs were awarded to the defendant.
2 Oct 2025

PUNCAK GALI HARMONI SDN BHD EMRAIL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte injunction and originating summons were incompetent and voidable because they were commenced in breach of the mandatory moratorium under section 410(c) Companies Act 2016 and were obtained by material non-disclosure; nunc pro tunc filing did not cure the jurisdictional defect; injunction also impermissibly interfered with a government contract and provisions of the Specific Relief Act and Government Proceedings Act, therefore the ex parte order is set aside and the originating summons dismissed in limine with indemnity costs to the defendant.
29 Sept 2025

ABDUL MAJID BIN MD HANIFF Majlis Perbandaran Selayang

Citation

BA-25-129-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-129-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide triable issue as to ownership; s116 Evidence Act precludes a tenant who has long occupied the premises from denying the landlord's title; damages are an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favours the Respondent; therefore injunction must be refused.
26 Sept 2025

Mokkaya A/p Selembaram THIEVEANTHIRAN A/L THURAISAMY

Citation

BA-22NCvC-158-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-158-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The interim ex parte injunction was set aside because the court found that damages are an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favoured the Defendant given serious prejudice to his business and reputation, and genuine triable issues exist (ownership, alleged fraud/forgery and validity of documents) that require full trial; therefore continuation of the interim injunction was unjustified.
8 Sept 2025

LIM YEW CHYE & SONS REALTY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) IRAMA SETIA SDN BHD 2. ) SAN TAT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-250-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-250-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, as registered proprietor, raised a bona fide triable issue of trespass; damages are inadequate given irreversible alteration to land; balance of convenience favors preserving status quo; therefore a limited prohibitory interim injunction protecting the plaintiff's registered land and maintaining existing hoardings is necessary pending trial, while a mandatory restoration order is refused as premature.