18 Dec 2025
The ex parte application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to make the required full and frank disclosure and his pleaded ignorance was implausible and contradicted by land records, caveats and other material, so equitable relief was refused.
13 Mar 2023
O.92 r.1(1) RC 2012 requires court documents to be in the national language and the Registrar's Circular is administrative and cannot displace that statutory requirement; the appellant did not satisfy the O.92 r.1(4) exception nor file the Bahasa Malaysia translation within the required period, therefore the High Court was correct to strike out enclosure 20 and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Mar 2022
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.
7 Jan 2021
The ARR was not gazetted as reserved land and no right of way had been created under the NLC; the plaintiff therefore had no legal right to be invaded; the plaintiff further failed to make full and frank disclosure of those material facts in its ex parte application and has no real prospect of success for a perpetual injunction, so the interlocutory injunction is refused and the ex parte order set aside.
27 Aug 2020
On the affidavits the plaintiff disclosed a bona fide serious issue, established irreparable injury and that damages were inadequate; the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff and the defendant failed to adequately contradict key averments (including company registration timing), therefore the court allowed the plaintiff's application for interim injunction (Enclosure 4) and dismissed the defendant's application (Enclosure 19) with costs in the cause, permitting plaintiff access to remove his property and restraining the defendant from removing or interfering pending trial.
28 May 2020
The court found the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient causes of action (injunction, declaration, damages) and had made full disclosure relevant to the ex parte application; the defendant's application to set aside the ex parte injunction was dismissed as there was no deliberate non-disclosure or mala fides and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo; accordingly the interlocutory injunction was maintained on terms and the defendant's procedural attempt to summarily dispose of the suit by merging stages was defective.
2 Dec 2019
The court found that plaintiff established serious issues to be tried and that damages would not adequately protect plaintiff and the owners if defendant were permitted to continue interfering; ex parte service was within rules; interference in internal employer-employee domestic investigations is not a proper basis for injunctive relief but plaintiff as statutory management body required protection to preserve status quo pending full trial; accordingly plaintiff's interim injunction was maintained and defendant's cross-application was dismissed.
The day an ex parte injunction is granted is excluded when computing the 21‑day life span under O.29 r.1(2B) read with O.3 r.2(2) RHC and s.54(1)(a) Interpretation Acts; an ex parte injunction automatically lapses at the end of 21 days and cannot be extended, but the underlying application converts to and subsists as an inter partes application upon service; the court retains jurisdiction to grant an ad interim injunction on the live inter partes application and damages or costs are not automatic upon lapse of the ex parte order.