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.
MONEYLENDING – ILLEGALITY– COURT OF APPEAL: LICENSED MONEYLENDERS CAN RECOVER VOID LOANS UNDER RESTITUTION
In Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2025] MLJU 2245, the Court of Appeal ruled that a licensed moneylender may recover loan monies under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, even when the moneylending agreements are void for technical non-compliance with the Moneylenders Act 1951. The Court held that while the agreements were void and unenforceable, they were not illegal, as the lender was duly licensed and the transactions were genuine. Applying the Federal Court’s Detik Ria principles, the Court found that restitution was proportionate and justified, ordering repayment of RM3.38 million to prevent unjust enrichment.
MONEYLENDERS ACT 1951- UNJUST ENRICHMENT OR ILLEGAL LOAN? COURT WEIGHS RESTITUTION AGAINST THE MONEYLENDERS ACT
In Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2021] 12 MLJ, the Court considered whether a licensed moneylender, whose loan agreements were void for non-compliance with the Moneylenders Act 1951, could nevertheless pursue restitutionary remedies. The plaintiff, having advanced RM3.5 million which was channelled to the defendant’s company, sought recovery on grounds of money had and received and unjust enrichment under the Contracts Act 1950. The defendant applied to strike out the claim, arguing that it was merely an indirect attempt to enforce an illegal loan. The case illustrates the delicate balance between statutory illegality under the Moneylenders Act and the equitable principles underpinning restitution.
LIMITATION OF ACTION – TIME WAITS FOR NO CLAIM – COURT OF APPEAL STRIKES OUT PKA’S LATE ACTION
In the notable decision of Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd v Port Kelang Authority [2025] 2 MLJ 238, the Court of Appeal firmly emphasized the critical importance of timely action in contractual disputes, ruling that PKA’s claims against KDSB were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1953. The Court decisively clarified that parties cannot invoke the postponement of limitation periods without demonstrating genuine inability to discover breaches earlier through reasonable diligence. This judgment serves as a stern reminder to litigants to vigilantly monitor their contractual rights and act promptly to avoid losing claims due to statutory time limitations.
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – WHEN SILENCE HURTS: COURT SLAMS GOVERNMENT WITH RM2M+ IN AMPUTATION NEGLIGENCE SUIT
In L/Kpl Naraayanan Nair a/l Subramaniam v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2025] 8 MLJ 503, the High Court delivered a landmark ruling in a medical negligence suit involving a young police corporal who lost his arm due to delayed and negligent treatment. Citing emotional trauma, denial of timely access to medical records, and ongoing life-altering consequences, the court awarded over RM2 million in damages – including RM200,000 in aggravated damages – this shows the judiciary’s increasing emphasis on dignity, transparency, and rehabilitative justice in personal injury claims.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – INJUNCTION – INTERIM INJUNCTION
How’s interlocutory injunction granted? How can it be set aside?
ZH 
EN 
MY