Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

CIVIL PROCEDURE – INJUNCTION – INTERIM INJUNCTION

In brief 

  •  Judges in Malaysia do not grant Injunctions freely as a result of its draconian effect against the party to whom injunction was granted. Usually it would require strong evidence in support of the Plaintiff to bring the Judge to the Plaintiff’s side. An injunction is a legal term for a court order to stop someone from doing anything. There are several sorts of injunctions available, but the interim/interlocutory injunction is the most common. Moreover, the court’s jurisdiction to grant an injunction is provided in Section 50 and 51 of the Specific Relief Act 1950.

How does an interlocutory/interim injunction be granted? 

  •  Interlocutory injunctions are normally given to maintain the status quo between the parties until the main action is resolved or until the Court issues another order. Besides that, Order 29 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 will be read together with S.51 of the SRA 1950 in granting interlocutory injunction as it held that an application for an injunction can be brought at any time, and it is not required for the relief to be part of a claim for a party to make one. 
  •  On the other hand, in an emergency, an application for an interim injunction can be submitted ex parte. This ex parte injunction will automatically expire 21 days after it is granted, and the Court will not be able to prolong it. As a result, under Order 29 Rule 1(2BA) ROC 2012, the Court must schedule an inter partes hearing within 14 days of the order’s date. 
  • As can be seen in the case of Poke Food (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Fooditive Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 12 MLJ 644 the plaintiff has been granted ex parte interim injunction from the court to prohibit the defendant from having a identical or similar to the ‘The Fish Bowl’ business and preventing them to operate their business. The question right now would be based on whether the plaintiff needs to be granted an interlocutory injunction pending the trial of the case? 

Can the defendant file an application to set aside an ex parte interim injunction? 

  •  Within 21 days of the ex parte injunction being obtained, a respondent might file a motion to set aside the injunction order (Order 29, ROC). Despite the fact that an ex parte injunction order will automatically expire after 21 days, an application to set aside the injunction will be necessary and important in assessing the expenses and damages incurred as a result of the ex parte injunction order. 
  •  Furthermore, in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, the English Court provided a guide for granting an injunction, and Malaysia has adopted the English legal principles as follows: a) there must be a serious question to be tried, and b) the court must consider the balance of convenience of both parties, c) it must has some prospect of success and d) applicant seeking an injunction to at least show that prima facie he has a valid cause of action. 
  •  Based on the case of Poke Food (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Fooditive Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 12 MLJ 644 when the issue came on December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs had made no application to the court for an ad interim injunction. The rulings according to encls 7 and 22 were not given by this court for six months, from November 2019 to April 2020. The court then concluded that this matter no longer had an urgency to the plaintiffs. As a result of this court’s finding that the balance of convenience favors the defendants, there is no need for an injunction to be given. In addition, the plaintiff does not show any hardship regarding this matter. Finally, this court was more concerned with what it needed to do in the interim to preserve the rights of the parties who came before it than with the parties’ odds of success or failure in proving their civil complaint at the upcoming trial. 
  •  After the court has proved that none of the plaintiff’s filing actually fulfils the elements in requesting for ad interim injunction, it is clear to say the court view that there is no pressing need for the plaintiffs to be granted an interlocutory injunction pending the trial of the case and penalty has been given to the plaintiff. In addition, the defendants are allowed to set aside an ex parte interim injunction in encl 22 with costs included. 
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN