An interlocutory injunction will not be granted if there is no serious issue to be tried, and claims against non-parties to a contract are unsustainable.

(Enclosures 3, 12, 14 and 37)

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

Preliminary

[1] A dispute has arisen over the right to operate a car park in a building. On this matter, there is a claim by the plaintiff that the defendants renewed their contract to operate the car park for another term. The contract was later broken, says the plaintiff. The defendants dispute this claim, claiming the contract expired and that the second defendant did not renew it.

[2] A total of four (4) interlocutory applications are before the court. They are as follows:

(a) The first is encl 3. Enclosure 3 is the plaintiffs application for an inter partes injunction prohibiting the defendants from executing any contract to operate the car park with third parties until the final disposal of this case.

(b) Secondly, there is encl 12 which is the application filed by the first defendant to set aside the ex parte order issued by this court on 30 October 2024 which was then extended by an ad-interim order.

(c) Thirdly and similarly to encl 12, Enclosure 37 represents the application to set aside the injunction by the second defendant.

(d) Finally, encl 14 is the first defendant's application to strike out the plaintiffs claim under O 18 r 19(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of court 2012 ("RC 2012").

[3] Based on the submissions of the parties, all applications are being considered together.

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[4] By way of a Carpark Operator Cum License Agreement dated 1 October 2019 ("Agreement") entered into between one Bukit Damansara Development Sdn Bhd ("Bukit Damansara Development") and the plaintiff, the plaintiff was given a license to manage and operate the car parking facilities, including valet services, at VSquare @ PJ City Centre, Jalan Utara, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor ("the Building").

[5] It was for a period of five (5) years, commencing on 1 October 2019 and ending on 30 September 2024 ("the Expiry Date").

[6] As of December 2020, the second defendant entered into an agreement with Bukit Damansara Development. Through this agreement, the second defendant acquired sole ownership of the Building from Bukit Damansara Development for RM147 million.

[7] As a result of the second defendant's acquisition, Bukit Damansara Development assigned all obligations under the Agreement to the second defendant as the new proprietor of the Building by an assignment dated 2 November 2021 ("the Assignment").

court's Analysis And Findings

Enclosures 3,12 And 37 (Inter Partes And Setting Aside Of Ex Parte Order)

[8] As I move forward, I will take encls 3,12 and 37 together. The analysis will begin with the relevant principles for deciding whether to sustain the injunction pending the disposal of this action.

[9] Simultaneously thereafter and after analysing the same facts before me, I will proceed on the issue of whether the ex parte injunction ought to be set aside under the relevant principles which allow the parties being enjoined to apply to the court for a remedy of this type.

[10] The following are the provisions of O 29 r 1(1) and (2) of ROC 2012 as a starting point:

"Application for injunction (O 29, r 1)

1. (1) An application for the grant of an injunction may be made by any party to a cause or matter before or after the trial of the cause or matter, whether or not a claim for the injunction was included in that party's originating process, counterclaim or third party notice, as the case may be.

(2) Such application may be made by a notice of application supported by an affidavit and where the case is one of urgency, may be made ex parte. "

[11] In determining the basic legal principles of an interlocutory injunction, there could be no better guide than His Lordship Gopal Sri Ram's (as His Lordship then was) decision in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor @ Harun Abdullah & Ors 1994 MarsdenLR 493 ; 1994 MarsdenLR 2101 ; ; [1995] 1 AMR 373. His Lordship made the following observations for the court of Appeal at pp 206 & 207:

"To summarize, a