Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

Sorotan Terkini

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami