Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandatory injunction

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2026

TAN KIAN ENG 1. ) TAN GUAT KWEE 2. ) TAN OH MOOI @ TAN GUAT HUA 3. ) TAN GUAT TAA 4. ) TAN AH RAN 5. ) TAN GUAT ENG 6. ) TAN GUAT NGO 7. ) TAN HAN BENG 8. ) SHING LIONG TRADING SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-22NCvC-11-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-11-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff's documentary evidence including the 1987 trust deed and transaction records established a clear beneficial interest of 17,028/898,315 shares; defendants failed to disclose any bona fide triable defence or alternative factual computation; the alleged subsequent sale did not override the pre-existing beneficial interest nor did D9 prove bona fide purchaser without notice. Accordingly, summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate and the court granted declaratory relief and mandatory and prohibitory injunctions together with costs RM8,000.
5 Jan 2026

1. ) TAN HOCK SENG 2. ) VICTOR TAN HAN FUNG Wong Lian Soon

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-19-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-19-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly held Annex 9 was an abuse of process: Order 92 r4 cannot be used as a shortcut to obtain substantive mandatory relief before trial where procedural mechanisms exist; the earlier MS03 judgment is not relevant or binding under ss40–43 Evidence Act 1950 for the substantive relief sought; and there was no misdirection or manifest injustice warranting appellate interference. Costs RM3000 awarded to respondent.
30 Oct 2025

Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Multimedia Malaysia (MCMC), Cyberjaya 1. ) INDIVIDU YANG TIDAK DIKENALI (Pentadbir Saluran Telegram 'Edisi Siasat') 2. ) INDIVIDU YANG TIDAK DIKENALI (Pentadbir Saluran Telegram 'Edisi Khas') 3. ) TELEGRAM MESSENG

Citation

WA-21CY-1-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21CY-1-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted the Erinford injunction to preserve the status quo as existing prior to the inter partes interlocutory hearing so that the impugned Telegram channels remain closed and the impugned contents are prohibited from publication pending the Court of Appeal; the balance of convenience favoured preservation because damages were inadequate, the appeal was not frivolous, public interest outweighed defendant prejudice, and without the injunction the appeal would likely be rendered nugatory.
29 Oct 2025

1. ) NG SHIH SHING 2. ) RICHARD IM 1. ) NUSMETRO PROPERTY SDN BHD 2. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA

Citation

BA-25-99-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-99-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 17(5) must be read with section 17(1); the exemption in s17(5) applies only if the Management Corporation comes into existence before the first AGM of the JMB specified in s17(1) (i.e. within the 12‑month period after delivery of vacant possession); because the MC here was established after the 12‑month period the developer remained obliged to convene the first AGM of the JMB and the Tribunal erred in law in holding otherwise, warranting quashing of the Impugned Award and grant of mandatory relief.
15 Oct 2025

BAGUS HOLIDAYS SDN BHD 1. ) CITYVILLA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) THAM GIAP CHAI 3. ) THAM CHENG LOCK 4. ) THAM YE-JIN 5. ) LOK KUI LEN

Citation

JA-22NCvC-63-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-63-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the reliefs sought were final in nature and inappropriate at the interlocutory stage; plaintiff failed key interlocutory requirements — there was no demonstrated urgency or irreparable harm justifying immediate mandatory relief, damages were an adequate remedy for the financial loss claimed, the balance of convenience favoured defendants, plaintiff came with unclean hands due to substantial unpaid charges under the Deed of Covenant, and the proposed Registrar's Caveat remedy was procedurally premature and within the exclusive statutory domain of the Land Registra…
18 Sept 2025

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Citation

DI-A54-1-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-A54-1-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application by the proposed intervener was dismissed because the proposed intervener failed to prove any proprietary interest or title in the goods or lawful occupation of the premises, lacked locus standi to challenge or intervene in the ex parte injunction obtained by the applicant, and the disputed matter between the proposed intervener and third parties (Inscorp/Rosmadi) concerned personal debt unrelated to the applicant; consequently the application to intervene was refused and costs were awarded to the applicant.
18 Sept 2025

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Citation

DI-A54-6-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-A54-6-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The proposed intervener lacked locus standi because it produced no evidence of ownership, tenancy or proprietary interest in the goods which the applicant proved by documentary evidence; intervention was therefore properly dismissed and costs awarded to the applicant (global RM3000).
18 Sept 2025

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Citation

DI-A54-2-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-A54-2-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The proposed intervener lacked locus standi and failed to adduce any evidence showing proprietary title or lawful possession of the goods; the dispute alleged was a personal debt between third parties (Iscorp and the intervener) and did not extinguish the applicant's demonstrated ownership; the premises were not shown to be occupied by the intervener; accordingly the application to intervene and to set aside the ex parte mandatory injunction is dismissed with costs.
18 Sept 2025

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Citation

DI-A54-4-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-A54-4-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The proposed intervener's applications were dismissed because it failed to establish locus standi or any proprietary interest in the goods; the applicant proved ownership by documentary evidence and obtained a valid ex parte mandatory injunction; the intervener's dispute is a separate personal debt claim against Iscorp and Rosmadi and does not confer rights over the applicant's goods, therefore leave to intervene and the setting aside of the injunction were refused and costs awarded to the applicant.
18 Sept 2025

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Citation

DI-A54-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-A54-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The proposed intervener's application was dismissed because they failed to prove any proprietary interest or lawful possession of the goods and therefore lacked locus standi to intervene; applicant established ownership by documentary evidence and conduct, and relevant parties occupying or responsible for the premises did not seek to set aside the injunction, justifying maintenance of the ex parte order and costs to applicant.