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. 

Recent Post

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »

JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LOCUS STANDI

This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION REMEDIES UNVEILED: DECIPHERING CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES AND LEGAL BALANCE

This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?