Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory injunction

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

1. ) TEE WEE SIONG 2. ) TEE E VA 1. ) MIDIOS SDN BHD 2. ) KEDIOS BERHAD 3. ) TAN CHIN HORNG 4. ) TAN KIM LIAN 5. ) VILOR PARTNERS BERHAD 6. ) GOH YOK MOU 7. ) CHAN BOON LEONG 8. ) WONG YIT FONG 9. ) LEE YEN CHEA 10. ) LUM SIN YI 11. ) LEONG

Citation

WA-24NCC-253-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-253-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs established a serious issue to be tried but failed to show that the proposed EGM would so interfere with the administration of justice as to justify restraining statutory shareholder rights. The Suit 61 injunction was narrowly drawn and did not prohibit removal of directors; the Requisitionists were prima facie entitled to exercise rights under ss 206 and 310; the Monatech principle did not apply on the present material; the balance of convenience favored the defendants and damages were an adequate remedy; accordingly the interlocutory injunction was refused and the application…
9 Mar 2026

1. ) SCIB PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) SARAWAK CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES BHD 1. ) AWANA JV SURIA SAGA SDN BHD 2. ) MBSB BANK BERHAD BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK KU CHONG HONG

Citation

BA-22NCC-17-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-17-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend was granted because the plaintiffs credibly relied on newly discovered documents obtained via MACC that were not previously in their possession, the proposed amendments arise from the same factual matrix as the original claim, there was no inordinate delay and any prejudice to defendants can be managed by case management directions and costs; consequently the amendments will advance substantive justice.
21 Jan 2026

BANDAR UTAMA CITY ASSETS SDN. BHD. 1. ) Rotol (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Chua Kah Seng 3. ) Marx Chua Wei King

Citation

BA-12A-33-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-33-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly found bona fide serious issues to be tried concerning the validity of the renewal and termination of the tenancy, accepted that section 7(2) bars unilateral retaking of possession absent court process, and properly exercised its discretion to preserve the status quo and grant an interlocutory injunction; appellate interference was unwarranted.
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.
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.
11 Nov 2025

UIS BUILDING MATERIALS SDN BHD XIAO XIANHUA

Citation

JA-22NCvC-95-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-95-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court admitted the contested affidavits for the limited interlocutory purpose because independent evidence (an interpreter affidavit) established comprehension for the Defendant's affidavits and no independent proof was provided that the Plaintiff's deponent did not understand the affidavits; both parties raised serious triable issues but the balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages favored preserving the status quo under the Plaintiff's management; accordingly Plaintiff's inter partes injunction was granted and the Defendant's counter‑injunction dismissed.
11 Nov 2025

UIS BUILDING MATERIALS SDN BHD XIAO XIANHUA

Citation

JA-22NCvC-95-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-95-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court admitted the contested affidavits for the limited interlocutory purpose despite jurat irregularities because independent evidence demonstrated comprehension for the Defendant and the objector failed to prove lack of comprehension for the Plaintiff; both parties raised triable issues, damages were not an adequate remedy for the alleged continuing operational and reputational harm, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo under the Plaintiff's management. Therefore the Plaintiff's inter partes injunction was confirmed and the Defendant's counter-injunction di…
10 Nov 2025

SUNTHARARUBAN A/L SELVANAYAGAM 1. ) CLIFFORD DASS 2. ) ALICIA JOANNE DASS 3. ) VALRIE JOANNE DASS

Citation

WA-22NCvC-353-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-353-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found there were serious issues to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo because the Defendants could use the PA to dispose of the property and damages would be an inadequate remedy; accordingly interlocutory injunctions were issued restraining the Defendants from using the PA and restraining the Plaintiff from disposing of the property, with Defendants permitted to remain in occupation, until disposal of the suit or further order.
6 Nov 2025

TEH CHEE HOE SOUTH MALAYSIA INDUSTRIES BERHAD

Citation

WA-24NCC-327-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-327-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff lacked the statutory right to compel circulation at the time of instituting proceedings because he did not meet the 2.5% shareholding threshold and failed the 28-day advance-notice timing in s323; the proceedings were premature as the company's board had not finally refused circulation and was actively considering the notice and seeking legal advice; the combination amounted to an abuse of process warranting dismissal and striking out of the originating summons and related interlocutory application.
4 Nov 2025

1. ) MOHD YUNOS BIN MALEK 2. ) MOHD HASSAN BIN MADON 3. ) MOHAMMED OMAR BIN MADON 1. ) ABDUL MAJID BIN MOHD ZIN 2. ) LEE LAI HUAT 3. ) MAJU CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-45-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-45-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There is a serious issue to be tried on the validity of the 895,000 shares and whether the First Defendant has acted or will act ultra vires by excluding a co-director; the balance of convenience and justice favors a limited in personam injunction to prevent unilateral corporate acts that could render the plaintiffs’ claim academic; the injunction is narrowly framed so as not to undo concluded settlements with YPJP and res judicata, functus officio, s54(a) and non-intervention principles do not bar the limited relief sought.