Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim prohibitory injunction

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2024

XIN TIAN HAO TRADING INC 1. ) TIAN HAO PLASTIC SDN BHD 2. ) TIAN HAO MARKETING SDN BHD 3. ) FOO SEONG WEI

Citation

BA-23NCvC-4-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-4-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that the Keet Gerald criteria were met: there are bona fide serious issues to be tried, the balance of convenience and justice favour maintaining the status quo, and there is a real risk that without injunction the Defendants could deal with and diminish the value of the subject materials; accordingly an interim prohibitory injunction under Sections 50 and 51 Specific Relief Act 1950 and Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 was justified and granted in favor of the Plaintiff.
5 Mar 2021

Sykt Ogen LED Sdn Bhd [No. Sykt: 201601001793] 1.Balaguru a/l Muniandy [No. K/P: 760330-08-5759] Dalam kapasiti peribadi dan berniaga diatas nama dan gaya Ogen Worldwide [No. Pendaftaran: 202003039005] 2. Azzumas Technology Sdn Bhd [No. Syk

Citation

22NCC-89-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-89-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that there are serious questions to be tried on the affidavits, the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff because the defendants' conduct (use of forged/altered documents, appointment and website alterations) risks irreparable loss to the plaintiff's goodwill and trade name, and damages would be inadequate; accordingly an interim prohibitory injunction should issue in favour of the plaintiff.
25 Jan 2021

1. OAG ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. OAG OFFSHORE PIPELINE SERVICES SDN BHD 3. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD - ABU DHABI 4. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD 5. SETIA OFFSHORE SERVICES SDN BHD 1. NG HOE KEONG 2. DEVANDRAN A/L ARUMU

Citation

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that it lawfully exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 r.4 ROC and related statutory provisions to grant the Protective Order and the Anton Piller provisions after finding the plaintiffs met the ex parte disclosure threshold and required safeguards; the defendants' challenges to compel prior service and to rely on Bar Council Ruling 14.09 or certain Rules to avoid undertakings failed; accordingly Enclosures 15 and 26 were dismissed and Enclosure 41 was only partially allowed/dismissed to the extent described, with costs in the cause for the dismissed applications.

Malaysia Case Law

XIN TIAN HAO TRADING INC 1. ) TIAN HAO PLASTIC SDN BHD 2. ) TIAN HAO MARKETING SDN BHD 3. ) FOO SEONG WEI

Sykt Ogen LED Sdn Bhd [No. Sykt: 201601001793] 1.Balaguru a/l Muniandy [No. K/P: 760330-08-5759] Dalam kapasiti peribadi dan berniaga diatas nama dan gaya Ogen Worldwide [No. Pendaftaran: 202003039005] 2. Azzumas Technology Sdn Bhd [No. Syk

1. OAG ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. OAG OFFSHORE PIPELINE SERVICES SDN BHD 3. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD - ABU DHABI 4. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD 5. SETIA OFFSHORE SERVICES SDN BHD 1. NG HOE KEONG 2. DEVANDRAN A/L ARUMU