Injunction
17 cases · July 2023 to July 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 23
2 24
6 25
8 26
2023–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Ex parte injunction — Ad interim injunction — Interlocutory injunction — Interim prohibitory injunction — Electricity supply — Threatened disconnection — Essential utility services — Preservation of status quo — Urgency — Order 29 rule 1, Rules of Court 2012 — Order 29 rule 1(2), (2A), (2B) and (2BA), Rules of Court 2012 — Full and frank disclosure — Duty of disclosure — Serious question to be tried — Adequacy of damages — Balance of convenience — Balance of justice — Undertaking as to damages — Conditions attached to injunction — Mandatory injunction refused — Inter partes hearing — Duration of ex parte injunction. 1 Interim injunction — Ex parte application — Asset preservation pending mental health inquiry — Application to restrain dealings with movable and immovable assets allegedly transferred during period of incapacity — Whether High Court possessed jurisdiction to grant interim protective relief prior to finding under s 52 Mental Health Act 2001 — Whether urgency established — Whether duty of full and frank disclosure complied with — Whether requirements under American Cyanamid principles satisfied — Order 29 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 1 Three-limb test satisfied — Good arguable case — Assets within jurisdiction — Real risk of dissipation established. 1 Defamation — Requirement of specificity — Prohibition against vague restraint — Permissible scope — Preservation of lawful comment 1 Ex parte ad interim injunction — Setting aside — Local authority — Jurisdiction — Government Proceedings Act 1956, s 29 — Specific Relief Act 1950, s 54(d) — Contractual dispute — Car park management agreement — Interim mandatory injunction — Whether injunction could be granted against local authority — Substantial unresolved jurisdictional issue — Ex parte order set aside — Liberty to proceed inter partes — Rules of Court 2012 1 Interlocutory injunction — Principles — Serious issue to be tried — Adequacy of damages — Balance of convenience — American Cyanamid principles — Commercial dispute involving corporate control, subcontract and alleged interference with business — Whether damages adequate in commercial context — Scope of injunction restraining legal proceedings and third-party communications — Whether injunction would stifle legitimate legal rights — Parallel winding-up proceedings — Whether court should avoid interfering with proceedings before court of coordinate jurisdiction — Balance of convenience — Lower risk of injustice — Exercise of judicial discretion — Enclosure 13 dismissed — Costs in the cause 1 Interim relief — Application to restrain demolition and eviction of temple premises — Whether prima facie case established — Balance of convenience — Whether relief appropriate at interlocutory stage. 1 Final injunction — Protection of confidential information and business platform — Restoration of control 1 Orders for injunction set aside with damages to be assessed premised upon the plaintiff’s undertaking to pay the same in the event the Orders for injunction are set aside Damages — as the Orders for injunction restrained the defendants from selling the assets which the defendants have to maintain and with there being some evidence that another buyer could have been obtained to take over these assets, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to assert that no buyer could be obtained 1 Interlocutory injunction — Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 — Application to restrain alleged solicitation of employees — Alleged unlawful interference with trade and conspiracy — Expired non-solicitation and non-competition clauses — Alleged risk of disclosure of confidential information — Whether serious issue to be tried — Whether damages adequate remedy — Balance of convenience — Status quo — Keet Gerald test — Interim injunction refused Rules of Court 2012, O 29 — Specific Relief Act 1950 1 plaintiff as the elected President of the Association which is entitled to manage the Temple is entitled to a mandatory injunction for vacant possession thereof with the view to manage the same 1 Interim injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing statements defamatory of the plaintiffs — Whether damages would be an adequate remedy — Where the balance of justice lies. 1 Defendant obtained an order for sale of land — Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop the public auction of the land — Whether the injunction has become academic as the public auction did not proceed on the scheduled date — Plaintiff seeks a declaration that a consent judgment is valid and binding — Whether plaintiff has locus standi as he is not a party to the consent judgment — Whether the consent judgment remains effective as it has not been set aside — Whether there is a breach of the consent judgment by the defendant. 1 Claim premised on fraud — Ex-parte order was granted — Inter parte application for proprietary and Mareva injunction — Application to set aside the ex-parte order — Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 — Whether requirements for Mareva injunction satisfied– whether there was real risk assets would be dissipated — failure to demonstrate serious issues to be tried — unexplained delay in filing the applications — inter parte injunctions application dismissed — set aside application granted. 1 Setting aside ex parte injunction — Whether material non-disclosure — Whether quia timet injunction — Whether serious issues to be tried — Where the justice of the case lies — Whether damages is an adequate remedy — What is the status quo — Erinford injunction. 1 Fortuna Injunction — Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 Notice — Whether statutory notice validly issued by wound up company — Sanction from Director General of Insolvency — Whether fresh sanction required for issuing statutory notice — Defensive action — Section 471 CA 2016 — Whether leave required to commence proceedings against wound up company — Judgment debt — Whether there is bona fide dispute of debt — Whether pending appeal constitutes bona fide dispute of debt — Failure to comply with conditional stay order — Test for Fortuna injunction — Irreparable damage 1
Ex parte injunction — Ad interim injunction — Interlocutory injunction — Interim prohibitory injunction — Electricity supply — Threatened disconnection — Essential utility services — Preservation of status quo — Urgency — Order 29 rule 1, Rules of Court 2012 — Order 29 rule 1(2), (2A), (2B) and (2BA), Rules of Court 2012 — Full and frank disclosure — Duty of disclosure — Serious question to be tried — Adequacy of damages — Balance of convenience — Balance of justice — Undertaking as to damages — Conditions attached to injunction — Mandatory injunction refused — Inter partes hearing — Duration of ex parte injunction. 1 case
Interim injunction — Ex parte application — Asset preservation pending mental health inquiry — Application to restrain dealings with movable and immovable assets allegedly transferred during period of incapacity — Whether High Court possessed jurisdiction to grant interim protective relief prior to finding under s 52 Mental Health Act 2001 — Whether urgency established — Whether duty of full and frank disclosure complied with — Whether requirements under American Cyanamid principles satisfied — Order 29 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 1 case
Three-limb test satisfied — Good arguable case — Assets within jurisdiction — Real risk of dissipation established. 1 case
Defamation — Requirement of specificity — Prohibition against vague restraint — Permissible scope — Preservation of lawful comment 1 case
Interlocutory injunction — Principles — Serious issue to be tried — Adequacy of damages — Balance of convenience — American Cyanamid principles — Commercial dispute involving corporate control, subcontract and alleged interference with business — Whether damages adequate in commercial context — Scope of injunction restraining legal proceedings and third-party communications — Whether injunction would stifle legitimate legal rights — Parallel winding-up proceedings — Whether court should avoid interfering with proceedings before court of coordinate jurisdiction — Balance of convenience — Lower risk of injustice — Exercise of judicial discretion — Enclosure 13 dismissed — Costs in the cause 1 case
Interim relief — Application to restrain demolition and eviction of temple premises — Whether prima facie case established — Balance of convenience — Whether relief appropriate at interlocutory stage. 1 case
Final injunction — Protection of confidential information and business platform — Restoration of control 1 case
Orders for injunction set aside with damages to be assessed premised upon the plaintiff’s undertaking to pay the same in the event the Orders for injunction are set aside Damages — as the Orders for injunction restrained the defendants from selling the assets which the defendants have to maintain and with there being some evidence that another buyer could have been obtained to take over these assets, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to assert that no buyer could be obtained 1 case
Interlocutory injunction — Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 — Application to restrain alleged solicitation of employees — Alleged unlawful interference with trade and conspiracy — Expired non-solicitation and non-competition clauses — Alleged risk of disclosure of confidential information — Whether serious issue to be tried — Whether damages adequate remedy — Balance of convenience — Status quo — Keet Gerald test — Interim injunction refused Rules of Court 2012, O 29 — Specific Relief Act 1950 1 case
plaintiff as the elected President of the Association which is entitled to manage the Temple is entitled to a mandatory injunction for vacant possession thereof with the view to manage the same 1 case
Interim injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing statements defamatory of the plaintiffs — Whether damages would be an adequate remedy — Where the balance of justice lies. 1 case
Defendant obtained an order for sale of land — Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop the public auction of the land — Whether the injunction has become academic as the public auction did not proceed on the scheduled date — Plaintiff seeks a declaration that a consent judgment is valid and binding — Whether plaintiff has locus standi as he is not a party to the consent judgment — Whether the consent judgment remains effective as it has not been set aside — Whether there is a breach of the consent judgment by the defendant. 1 case
Claim premised on fraud — Ex-parte order was granted — Inter parte application for proprietary and Mareva injunction — Application to set aside the ex-parte order — Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 — Whether requirements for Mareva injunction satisfied– whether there was real risk assets would be dissipated — failure to demonstrate serious issues to be tried — unexplained delay in filing the applications — inter parte injunctions application dismissed — set aside application granted. 1 case
Setting aside ex parte injunction — Whether material non-disclosure — Whether quia timet injunction — Whether serious issues to be tried — Where the justice of the case lies — Whether damages is an adequate remedy — What is the status quo — Erinford injunction. 1 case
Fortuna Injunction — Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 Notice — Whether statutory notice validly issued by wound up company — Sanction from Director General of Insolvency — Whether fresh sanction required for issuing statutory notice — Defensive action — Section 471 CA 2016 — Whether leave required to commence proceedings against wound up company — Judgment debt — Whether there is bona fide dispute of debt — Whether pending appeal constitutes bona fide dispute of debt — Failure to comply with conditional stay order — Test for Fortuna injunction — Irreparable damage 1 case
Key Statutes
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 4 cases Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
cited in 3 cases Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)
cited in 2 cases Government Proceedings Act 1956
cited in 1 case Local Government Act 1976
cited in 1 case Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956
cited in 1 case Federal Constitution
cited in 1 case Indian Companies Act
cited in 1 case Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan 3 Quay Chew Soon 2 Su Tiang Joo 2 Noradura binti Hamzah 2 Jamhirah binti Ali 1 Anita binti Harun 1 Shamsulbahri bin Haji Ibrahim 1 Noor Hisham bin Ismail 1 Choong Yeow Choy 1 Muhammad Adam bin Abdullah 1 Ong Chee Kwan 1 Mahazan binti Mat Taib 1 Wan Muhammad Amin bin Wan Yahya 1
Top Firms
Justin Voon Chooi & Wing 2 Rahmat Lim & Partners 1 Neik & Partners 1 Ting Asiah & Co. 1 Azwad Ihsan & Co. 1 Adi Radlan & Co. 1 Shobana M & Associates 1 Chelva R. Suppiah & Co. 1 Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership 1 Shook Lin & Bok 1 Kee Sern, Siu & Huey 1 KH Wong & Co 1 Sandosh Anandan 1 Khairul Fadzli Amin & Co. 1 Moideen & Max 1
Top Lawyers
Iris Lim 1 Justin Voon Tian Yu 1 Shanice 1 Peter Neik Xiang Sheng 1 Teo Xin Yee 1 Mohammad Syahmi bin Nawawi 1 Abd Shukor Ahmed 1 Baljit Singh Sidhu 1 Nor Shahidah Saari 1 Fadhil Ihsan bin Mohamad Hassan 1 Khairulazwad Bin Sariman 1 Dennis Yueah 1 Celine Lim 1 Monisha a/p John Selvam 1 Chelvarajan a/l R Suppiah 1
Cases
ma-24ncvc-225-07-2026
PLENTIFIELD MARKETING SDN. BHD. v TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD
5 July 2026
MYHC
ma-24ncvc-151-05-2026
ONG TJOEI AIK HAROLD v 1. ) GAN SIEW MUI @ GAN YOOK HWA 2. ) ONG LU YUAN 3. ) HOWARD ONG LU PENG
20 May 2026
MYHC
ja-24ncvc-135-01-2026
1. ) SURESH A/L DORASAMY 2. ) KAYTRE A/P DORASAMY v 1. ) PARTIBAN A/L DORASAMY 2. ) KAYTRI SERVICES SDN. BHD. 3. ) KAYTRI SERVICES
13 May 2026
MYHC
ma-12b-3-03-2025
NUR AKHMAR BINTI ABD HAMID v TAHAP PUNCAK SDN BHD
4 May 2026
MYHC
ja-22ncc-25-04-2026
PRESGO GATEWAYS SDN BHD v Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru
29 April 2026
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-321-05-2025
SHINE DC TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. v 1. ) NI, KE 2. ) SHINE TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD
4 March 2026
MYHC
ja-24ncvc-79-01-2026
1. ) MALAI HALUM MURUGAN PERUMAN 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGANUT DEWA MALAI HALUM MURUGAN PERUMAN HALAYAM, KANGAR PULAI, JOHOR BAHRU, JOHOR 3. ) PAREMESWARARAO A/L NARAYANAN v MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KULAI, JOHOR
28 January 2026
MYHC
wa-22ncc-412-06-2023
SAPELO MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) FEEZAL SHAZLEE BIN RAHMAT (Disaman dalam kapasiti peribadinya dan sebagai pemilik tunggal yang berdagang di bawah nama dan gaya Floof Pet) 2. ) ADIBAH HANUN BT ABU SEMAN BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK 1. ) Wise Payments Malaysia Sdn Bhd 2. ) HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD 3. ) AEON Credit Service (M) Berhad 4. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 5. ) ALLIANCE ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 6. ) LUNO MALAYSIA SDN BHD 7. ) ABDUL RAZZAQ BIN CHE AZIZ 8. ) XENDIT SDN BHD 9. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERH...
13 January 2026
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-235-04-2019
PELANGI PRESTASI SDN BHD v 1. ) SABAH FOREST INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 2. ) LEE & MAN PAPER MANUFACTURING LIMITED (NOD on 23.9.2021) 3. ) GRANT THORNTON CONSULTING SDN BHD 4. ) DATO' NARENDRAKUMAR A/L CHUNILAL RUGNATH
14 October 2025
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-381-09-2024
1. ) NIRO CERAMIC SALES & SERVICES (M) SDN BHD 2. ) FOSHAN NIRO CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIALS TRADING CO LTD v 1. ) GUOCERA SDN BHD 2. ) CHENG LI YONG
29 September 2025
MYHC
wa-24ncvc-199-01-2025
GUNASILAN A/L RENGASAMY v 1. ) MUNUSAMY A/L KARUPPIAH @ MANO 2. ) MARAGATHAM A/P KARUPPIAH 3. ) BALA SUBRAMANIAM A/L MUTHAIAH 4. ) RAMANATHAN A/L GOVINDAN 5. ) RAVAITHIREN A/L THANABALAN 6. ) PRABAVATHY RAVAITHIREN 7. ) CHANDRAMOGAN A/L THEVASUNDRAM 8. ) NITYA KALYANI A/P CHANDRAMOGAN 9. ) RUKUMANI 10. ) NIVEDHA A/P CHANDRAMOGAN @ KAVITA
21 July 2025
MYHC
pa-23ncvc-3-05-2025
1. ) YCE PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT PLT 2. ) TAN CHOON HWA 3. ) OOI SIN WU 4. ) LAU TZE YANG v 1. ) TAN BENG HIN 2. ) THE CHINA PRESS BHD
21 May 2025
MYHC
bl-24ncc-1-02-2025
ROSDIN BIN ANANG v 1. ) KOMBINASI BUMI SOLAR SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai JEJAK NUSA SDN BHD) 2. ) LEE AH BAN 3. ) MOHD ASUWAD BIN HUSSIN 4. ) EVERFINE MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 5. ) Siti Asmara Nurhayati Binti Abdul Rahman (Disaman atas kapasiti sebagai Setiausaha Syarikat Defendan Pertama) 6. ) TAN CHIN SIEA BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM)
19 February 2025
MYHC
pa-24ncvc-1495-11-2024
NG IT SENG v PUBLIC BANK BERHAD
18 February 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-442-07-2024
1. ) MALAYSIA AUTOMOTIVE, ROBOTICS AND IOT INSTITUTE 2. ) A2Z TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. v 1. ) DATO TS MOHAMAD MADANI BIN SAHARI 2. ) ASPIRE KNOWLEDGE SDN. BHD. 3. ) SANDOSH A/L J N ANANDAN 4. ) VASUDEVAN A/L ARUMUGAM 5. ) MUGILAN KRISHNARAJAH A/L KRISHNARAJAH 6. ) PROFITABLE WORKS PLT 7. ) MATIN NAZIR JOHANABAS BIN ROSMAN 8. ) MATIN FAYZAL JOHANABAS 9. ) WENLE HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 10. ) SU SEONG YEEN 11. ) TAN OOI JIN 12. ) AHMAD ASYRAF HAZWAN BIN UZER 13. ) MOHD SAZALI MOHAMED AMIN 14. ) KUHAN ARU...
12 December 2024
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-111-07-2024
1. ) CH'NG CHEN MONG 2. ) TAN POH CHENG 3. ) CH'NG BOON SIN 4. ) CFAMILLIE HOLDINGS SDN BHD v 1. ) MG FURNITURE SDN BHD 2. ) MG FURNITURE INNOVATION SDN BHD 3. ) HHRG BERHAD 4. ) HH LAND AND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 5. ) GOH BOON LEONG 6. ) DATO' GOH HOCK CHOY 7. ) FONG CHEE KHUEN 8. ) CHENG PEK TONG 9. ) CHUAH HANG CHEW 10. ) NG YING YIING 11. ) HING POE PYNG 12. ) DATO' H'NG CHOON SENG 13. ) HO WHYE CHONG PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) MS FORESIGHT SDN. BHD. 2. ) CH'NG SEOK YUAN 3. ) SAU HWEE FERN
18 November 2024
MYHC
wa-24ncc-781-07-2022
MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD
12 July 2023
MYHC