Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anti-suit injunction

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2025

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 1. ) Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow 2. ) Hannah Kam Zhen Yi

Citation

WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Plaintiff established a prima facie case that contemplated or actual proceedings under the Mental Health Act 2001 by the Defendants were mala fide, frivolous and an abuse of process; the Plaintiff produced cogent psychiatric evidence and enjoyed the presumption of capacity; damages were inadequate due to stigma and irreparable harm; the balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory/quia timet injunction. Accordingly Encl. 4 was allowed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
29 Apr 2025

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 1. ) Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow 2. ) Hannah Kam Zhen Yi

Citation

WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a prima facie case that any MHA 2001 proceedings contemplated by the Defendants were mala fide and an abuse of the court's process; plaintiff produced a consultant psychiatrist's report and presumption of capacity applies; defendants produced no cogent medical evidence; balance of convenience and risk of irreparable stigma favoured preserving the status quo; therefore an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from instituting or proceeding under Section 52 or otherwise under the Mental Health Act 2001 pending final disposal of the suit was justified and gran…
16 Jan 2025

REBANA MAJU SDN. BHD. HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1395-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1395-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for an injunction was dismissed because the KLHC had set aside the earlier Adjudication Decision thereby restoring the parties to their pre-adjudication positions; Defendant was entitled under CIPAA to file a fresh Payment Claim; Plaintiff had not sought or obtained a stay of the setting aside order, failed to show a serious issue to be tried or that damages were inadequate, and the balance of convenience favoured refusal of injunctive relief.
18 Oct 2024

PEMPETISYEN Hah Tiing Siu Pamela Ling Yueh

Citation

WA-33-614-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-614-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court granted the anti-suit injunction because Malaysia is the natural forum (strongest connection via citizenship, domicile, marriage and assets), the Petitioner did not submit to Singapore jurisdiction and did not delay, and allowing Singapore proceedings would be vexatious and oppressive by precluding Malaysian jurisdiction to divide matrimonial assets under section 76 LRA; granting relief in personam did not offend comity.
10 Aug 2023

1. ) HONDAAFUSHI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 2. ) ABDULLA ALI 3. ) ALI SHIYAM 4. ) AHMED HAMZA EXPORT-IMPORT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-160-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-160-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Malaysian suit was struck out as an abuse of process because the plaintiffs had unequivocally submitted to the jurisdiction of the Maldives court by invoking and litigating substantive defences there, the Malaysian proceedings were brought for collateral purposes and would create multiplicity and risk conflicting judgments; accordingly the anti-suit injunction was refused because the Maldives proceedings were not vexatious or oppressive, Maldives was the appropriate forum (including for enforcement of mortgage over Maldives land), and the plaintiffs had inordinately delayed seeking equita…
4 Aug 2023

Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because this Court had previously dismissed the plaintiff's injunction application and specifically directed the 1st Defendant to file a formal application for assessment of damages, the undertaking as to damages is enforceable and the proper course is to assess whether the 1st Defendant suffered compensable loss; consequently the application to enforce the undertaking and for assessment is allowed and the assessment is to be conducted before the Timbalan Pendaftar.
4 Aug 2023

Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prima facie valid, binding and capable arbitration agreements in the relevant Letters of Award (including LA 24.8.2016 and the four LOAs with D2), resolved the apparent reference to a 'Regional Centre for Arbitration in Singapore' as falling within SIAC's ambit, and held that under s10 Arbitration Act 2005 the court must stay the court proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration; collateral factual disputes (Collaboration Agreement, agency/alter-ego, multiplicity) are matters for the arbitral tribunal (or trial) and not for determination at this interlocutory stage.
4 Aug 2023

Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that the Letters of Award contain valid, binding and capable-of-performance arbitration agreements (including LA 24.8.2016 and the four LOAs with the 2nd defendant), that any alleged ambiguity as to the Singapore administering centre could be resolved (SIAC was the apparent institution and had registered the arbitration), and therefore under section 10 Arbitration Act 2005 the court must stay the court proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration; ancillary factual disputes (including existence of the Collaboration Agreement and inter-company relationships) are matters for…
4 Aug 2023

Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held that valid, binding and capable arbitration agreements existed in the relevant Letters of Award; the arbitration clause in LA 24.8.2016 was sufficiently certain to refer disputes to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC); under s10 Arbitration Act 2005 a mandatory stay was required and the court must refer the parties to arbitration, leaving factual disputes about a putative Collaboration Agreement and multiplicity issues to the arbitral tribunal or later determination.
4 Aug 2023

Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 121 is dismissed because distinct arbitration agreements exist between the parties and the Arbitration Act 2005 governs arbitration matters; section 24A(2) CJA is inapplicable where arbitration agreements govern, the issues raised were previously decided (res judicata/functus officio) and the application amounts to abuse of process and estoppel; party autonomy and arbitration procedures (including appointment of experts) must be respected.