1. ) Ahmad Rubil Bin Ahmad 2. ) Mazawati Osman 3. ) Low Koe Sei 4. ) Koh Mei Leng 5. ) Abdul Malek Bin Ahmad Zaini 6. ) Haironi Binti Raffaiee 7. ) Chong Sun Chan 8. ) Tong Yap Lan 9. ) Syarifah Aliza Binti Syed Azauddin 10. ) Juraimi Azahar Bin Taharim 11. ) Anwar Ali Bin Vali Mohamed v 1. ) Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd 2. ) CK East Construction Sdn Bhd PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) TERMINAL BERSEPADU GOMBAK SDN BHD 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA
wa-22ncvc-655-09-2019 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 15 April 2026 • WA-22NCvC-655-09/2019 • 11 min read
1 cases cited
(0 SG, 1 foreign)
Catchwords
Civil Procedure — Assessment of damages — Undertaking as to damages — Interlocutory injunction granted and subsequently resolved by consent order — Whether absence of express judicial finding that injunction was wrongly granted precludes enforcement of undertaking — Whether undertaking survives consent order — Whether entitlement to damages arises upon final disposal of main suit — Plaintiffs’ claim dismissed at trial and affirmed on appeal — Federal Court leave refused — Effect of finality of litigation — Whether Defendants entitled to proceed with assessment. Civil Procedure — Striking out — Application to strike out assessment proceedings — Principles governing striking out — Whether Defendants’ application frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process — Application grounded on express undertaking and final judgment in Defendants’ favour — Whether threshold for striking out met. Civil Procedure — Stay of proceedings — Application to stay assessment pending appeal — Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed and Federal Court leave refused — Whether any pending proceedings — Whether basis for stay exists — Whether assessment should proceed. Practice and Procedure — Successor judge — Judge hearing post-trial application not trial judge — Whether court may revisit factual findings or interpret prior judge’s reasoning — Proper approach confined to record, consent order, undertaking and final outcome of litigation — Objective interpretation of legal effect of undertaking. Held, dismissing Plaintiffs’ application and allowing assessment to proceed: (i) the Plaintiffs’ undertaking as to damages, given as the price for interlocutory injunctive relief and expressly preserved in the consent order, remains valid and enforceable notwithstanding the absence of a formal adjudication on the propriety of the injunction; (ii) the interlocutory proceedings having been resolved by consent, the lack of a specific finding that the injunction was wrongly granted cannot be relied upon to defeat the operation of the undertaking; (iii) upon the final dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claim, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal with leave to appeal refused by the Federal Court, the substantive basis for the injunction has wholly failed, thereby rendering the undertaking operative; (iv) the Defendants’ application for assessment is not frivolous or an abuse of process but grounded on an express undertaking and final judgment in their favour; (v) there being no pending appeal or proceedings, no basis exists for a stay; (vi) the Defendants are entitled to proceed with assessment of damages, with quantum to be determined in accordance with law.
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (16)
CK East Construction Sdn Bhd Defendant KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA Third Party Kerajaan Malaysia Third Party Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd Defendant TERMINAL BERSEPADU GOMBAK Sdn Bhd Third Party Abdul Malek bin Ahmad Zaini Plaintiff Ahmad Rubil bin Ahmad Plaintiff Anwar Ali bin Vali Mohamed Plaintiff Chong Sun Chan Plaintiff Haironi binti Raffaiee Plaintiff Juraimi Azahar bin Taharim Plaintiff Koh Mei Leng Plaintiff Low Koe Sei Plaintiff Mazawati Osman Plaintiff Syarifah Aliza binti Syed Azauddin Plaintiff Tong Yap Lan Plaintiff
Cases Cited (1)
MY (1)
[1993] 4 CLJ 7
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-22ncvc-655-09-2019)