Interim injunction
4 cases · October 2024 to September 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 24
3 25
2024–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
trespass to land — Plaintiff registered proprietor — Defendants alleged to have entered and carried out earthworks, excavation, slope cutting and drain construction on Plaintiff’s land without consent — removal and sale of soil — trespass actionable per se — serious issue to be tried established — photographic evidence and Defendant’s affidavit admitting works near boundary — damages inadequate due to permanent alteration and uniqueness of land — balance of convenience favours Plaintiff — undertaking and hoarding fences do not render application academic — risk of recurrence — mandatory injunction refused pending trial — prohibitory injunction granted — costs in the cause. 1 Defamation — Plaintiff has not met the threshold requirements for granting an interim injunction — the articles published were not posted out of thin air or out of bad intention or malice by the Defendants. There was documentary evidence to support the narrative. Whether it was wrongly construed or understood, the basis was there — the application was dismissed. 1 Mareva injunction — fiduciary duty — secret profits — Companies Act 2016 s 221 1 Plaintiff's cause of action against the Defendants is for breach of fiduciary duties, confidentiality as employees of the Plaintiff- Plaintiff's case lies in the alleged breach of employment contracts by the 3rd to 7th Defendants, undisputedly employees of the Plaintiff — On the face of it, it is apparent that Plaintiff might have a valid claim against their employees on the alleged breaches if sufficiently proven in the circumstances of the case. However, upon careful deliberation of all relief sought in this application, I find that the injunctive relief has a blanket effect on all Defendants and mirrored substantially the final prayers in the Statement of Claim — the alleged confidential information by Plaintiff was too vague and ambiguous — the relief sought against Byteering, Azteering, and Chua is questionable, mere speculation, and seemingly based on assumptions that require them to first establish their case to warrant injunctive relief — tantamount to a restrain of trade, which would be in conflict with s. 28 of the Contract Act — Plaintiff failed to show that they will suffer irreparable damage, and I am satisfied that they can still be adequately compensated in the event that their claim is allowed after trial — Plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction is hereby dismissed with cost. 1
trespass to land — Plaintiff registered proprietor — Defendants alleged to have entered and carried out earthworks, excavation, slope cutting and drain construction on Plaintiff’s land without consent — removal and sale of soil — trespass actionable per se — serious issue to be tried established — photographic evidence and Defendant’s affidavit admitting works near boundary — damages inadequate due to permanent alteration and uniqueness of land — balance of convenience favours Plaintiff — undertaking and hoarding fences do not render application academic — risk of recurrence — mandatory injunction refused pending trial — prohibitory injunction granted — costs in the cause. 1 case
Defamation — Plaintiff has not met the threshold requirements for granting an interim injunction — the articles published were not posted out of thin air or out of bad intention or malice by the Defendants. There was documentary evidence to support the narrative. Whether it was wrongly construed or understood, the basis was there — the application was dismissed. 1 case
Mareva injunction — fiduciary duty — secret profits — Companies Act 2016 s 221 1 case
Plaintiff's cause of action against the Defendants is for breach of fiduciary duties, confidentiality as employees of the Plaintiff- Plaintiff's case lies in the alleged breach of employment contracts by the 3rd to 7th Defendants, undisputedly employees of the Plaintiff — On the face of it, it is apparent that Plaintiff might have a valid claim against their employees on the alleged breaches if sufficiently proven in the circumstances of the case. However, upon careful deliberation of all relief sought in this application, I find that the injunctive relief has a blanket effect on all Defendants and mirrored substantially the final prayers in the Statement of Claim — the alleged confidential information by Plaintiff was too vague and ambiguous — the relief sought against Byteering, Azteering, and Chua is questionable, mere speculation, and seemingly based on assumptions that require them to first establish their case to warrant injunctive relief — tantamount to a restrain of trade, which would be in conflict with s. 28 of the Contract Act — Plaintiff failed to show that they will suffer irreparable damage, and I am satisfied that they can still be adequately compensated in the event that their claim is allowed after trial — Plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction is hereby dismissed with cost. 1 case
Key Statutes
Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)
cited in 1 case Federal Constitution
cited in 1 case National Land Code (Cap 828)
cited in 1 case Rules of Court 2012
cited in 1 case Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Firms
Top Lawyers
Gurdit Singh 1 Chew Zhen Nen 1 Marcus Lim Wan Peng 1 H.C Tan 1 Reuben Ong Shen Myn 1 Sheena Stephanie Sebastian 1 Rajesh Nagarajan 1 Sachpreetraj Singh Sohanpal 1 Amanda Sonia Mathew 1 Rajan Navaratanam 1 Aswath a/l Ramakrishnan 1 Ezryl Azlyzan Ahmad Damanhuri 1 Mohd Iskandar Ismail 1 Mohamad Nasrom Rashid 1 Ee Yen Chin 1
Cases
ba-22ncvc-250-06-2024
LIM YEW CHYE & SONS REALTY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v 1. ) IRAMA SETIA SDN BHD 2. ) SAN TAT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD
7 September 2025
MYHC
ba-23ncvc-43-07-2025
1. ) BUMI SURIA SDN BHD 2. ) DATUK SERI FARHASH WAFA SALVADOR 3. ) DATUK MOHD AMINUDIN BIN MUSTAPHA v 1. ) MNOW MEDIA SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD ABD AR-RAHMAN KOYA
3 September 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-298-05-2025
1. ) VICTOR WANG 2. ) WANG ZHENG v 1. ) MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MAMING 2. ) SARA NURASHEKEEN BINTI SUHAILI 3. ) STUDIO TWENTY THREE SDN. BHD.
19 August 2025
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-281-07-2024
HILTI (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. v 1. ) BYTEERING SDN BHD 2. ) AZTEERING SDN BHD 3. ) THAM KUAN JIAN 4. ) SIM JONG ING 5. ) MARVIN KHO TZYY YAW 6. ) CHUA YING KERK 7. ) VINCENT ENG
15 October 2024
MYHC