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

Sorotan Terkini

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY