Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory injunctions

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2024

MCC OVERSEAS (M) SDN BHD DAMAI CITY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-522-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-522-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed summary judgment because the defendant failed to establish any triable issue: the RM71,400,000 debt was admitted in related proceedings, the fraud allegations were unparticularised and inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and conduct (including absence of a police report and failure to raise the issue in other post‑discovery proceedings), and prior interlocutory rulings supported the plaintiff; therefore plaintiff entitled to judgment for RM71,400,000 plus interest and costs.
11 Jul 2024

1. ) Puncak Haruman Sdn Bhd 2. ) Elit Binaraya Sdn Bhd 3. ) Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Ali 1. ) JW Development Sdn Bhd 2. ) Syarikat Bamas Enterprise Sdn Bhd 3. ) Lee Kah Koon 4. ) Abdul Wahab Bin Abdullah 5. ) Zulkarnain bin Omar

Citation

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court dismissed the injunction application: it lacked jurisdiction to restrain enforcement of a judgment of a coordinate High Court under s54(b) Specific Relief Act; plaintiffs failed to show a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured defendant; damages were an adequate remedy and plaintiffs’ security was insufficient; therefore injunctive relief was refused and costs awarded to defendant.
31 Oct 2022

MALAYSIA HINDU SANGAM 1. ) MOHAN A/L SHANMUGAM 2. ) BALAKRISHNAN PARASURAMAN 3. ) KAVI ARASU A/L ARUMUGAM 4. ) MARGARET A/P MARIANATHAN 5. ) S SATHY VEL NAIDU A/L SHUNMUGAM

Citation

WA-24NCC-827-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-827-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the 45th AGM and the First and Second Central Council Meetings were valid and binding despite the delayed AGM and SSM rejection of extension because statutory non-compliance does not ipso facto invalidate an AGM; State Chairmen were not required to be invited to the First CCM as historical practice and the Articles show they are co‑opted members; the 1st to 4th Defendants' oral resignations were effective as announced, accepted at the First CCM and ratified at the Second CCM; accordingly the Counterclaim to nullify the AGM and subsequent elections was dismissed and the purporte…
16 Jul 2021

ROSLI BIN DAHLAN DATO' LOKMAN NOOR BIN ADAM (NRIC NO.: 730101-01-5215)

Citation

WA-23CY-20-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-20-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the impugned statements prima facie defamatory, the defendant's available evidence did not provide a credible basis for the pleaded defences, there was a real risk of repetition, and the case was exceptional and sufficiently strong that an interlocutory injunction should be granted pending trial.
28 May 2021

1. ) Lee Kai Wuen 2. ) Low Nang Hiang Lee Yee Wuen

Citation

J-02(IM)(NCC)-1315-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

J-02(IM)(NCC)-1315-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the High Court's interlocutory Mareva injunction because, although the respondent had demonstrated a good arguable case of misappropriation/oppression, the essential second ingredient — a real risk of dissipation of assets — was not established by evidence and could not be presumed from the circumstances; accordingly the Mareva injunction was improperly granted.
3 Jul 2020

NATASHA MARIA BINTI AKHAMAT IMMANCAN (NO. K/P : 820107-03-5558) 1. ) INTRORICH SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 952286-H) 2. ) NOOR HASLINA BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P : 710618-11-5026) 3. ) BAHRI BIN MOHAMAD ZIN (NO. K/P : 580304-03-5127)

Citation

WA-22NCVC-807-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-807-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the ex‑parte/ad‑interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's injunctive application because on the American Cyanamid test the balance of convenience and risk of prejudice favored defendants given the expired licence, the plaintiff's prior conduct (withdrawn suits and failure to invoke contractual termination remedies), insufficient evidence of irreparable harm, and because the dispute is governed by an arbitration clause that should be given effect; claims against the individual directors were struck out as unsustainable since obligations were those of the company.
21 Feb 2020

SCOMI GROUP BHD (Company No.: 571212-A) 1. GELOMBANG GLOBAL SDN BHD (Company No.: 1096201-U) 2. MALAYSIAN TRUSTEE BERHAD (Company No.: 21666-V)

Citation

WA-22NCC-74-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-74-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte/inter partes applications were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show a bona fide serious issue: clause 7 of the loan agreements constituted an express admission/estoppel that the lenders were not moneylenders, there was no evidence defendants carried on moneylending business, and the advances were commercial shareholder support; additionally the plaintiff had acted without bona fide and with unclean hands (publicly acknowledged the debts to Bursa while secretly seeking injunctions), damages were an adequate remedy calculable for traded shares, and the balance of convenie…
24 Jul 2019

1. LIPUTAN CANGGIH SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 377343-D) 2. ASCOT HEIGHTS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 578242-A) 3. LBCN DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 467678-T) 4. EXTROGOLD SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 517380-M) 5. REDZTIKAH SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 21636-D) 6. EUREKA

Citation

BA-22NCvC-534-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-534-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the plaintiffs' interrogatories application (Enc.143) because the interrogatories were not necessary to dispose fairly of the causes of action nor to save costs, the plaintiffs delayed and could have sought mandatory disclosure in their earlier interlocutory application; conversely the court granted the interlocutory Mareva and restraining injunctions (Enc.3) because the plaintiffs demonstrated a good arguable case on fraud, breach and failure of consideration, showed risk of asset dissipation and the balance of convenience favored preservation of…