1. Summary and Facts:
In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd entered into a five-year carpark operation agreement with Bukit Damansara Development Sdn Bhd in 2019, later assigned to TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd after it acquired the building. In April 2024, Edisijuta proposed a three-year extension, which it claimed was accepted, but the second respondent later notified that the contract would expire and appointed NES Solutions Sdn Bhd as the new operator. Edisijuta alleged losses of RM690,000 and claimed that NESS’s director, a former employee, had confidential information. Its letters of demand were ignored, and NESS denied the alleged extension.
In the High Court, the appellant’s interlocutory injunction application was dismissed, the ex parte injunction was set aside, and the suit was struck out. Following this, the appellant filed an application for an Erinford injunction at the Court of Appeal to preserve the status quo pending appeal.

2. Legal Issues:
• Whether an ex-parte Erinford injunction in the Court of Appeal can be granted by a single judge.
• Whether the ex parte Erinford injunction should be heard inter partes under Rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994.

3. Court’s Findings:
• A single judge may grant an ex-parte Erinford injunction to prevent prejudice pending appeal.
• Any “aggrieved party” may later apply under s 44(3) CJA before a three-judge panel to vary or discharge the injunction.
• There are three options available for ex parte application;-
(a) Hear ex parte;
(b) Hear as “opposed ex parte” application; or
(c) Convert it to an inter partes hearing (Rule 50 RCA).
• The court preferred the third option namely inter partes as the general rule to prevent abuse and save judicial resources.
• 2 conditions must be fulfilled by the second respondent in order to obtain Erinford injunction namely;
i) Appellant must give an undertaking to pay damages if the injunction is later aside or appeal fails.
ii) Appellant must deposit RM200,000 as security in the respondent’s solicitor’s client account.

4. Practical Implications:
This decision affirms several important legal principles including;
• The limitation power for a single judge under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1966 to grant an interim orders to prevent prejudice pending appeal.
• The Court of Appeal encouraged converting ex parte motions into inter partes hearings (Rule 50, RCA 1994) to save time and prevent abuse of court process. This promotes judicial efficiency and fairness between parties.