Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2658
HIGH COURT MALAYA GEORGETOWN
THEAN SENG SMART TRADING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
WELLESLEY ASSETS I SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-22NCvC-191-12/2024]
Interim injunctions are not granted if the balance of convenience favors the opposing party and damages are deemed an adequate remedy.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act 1950 - Application for interim injunction - Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain Defendants from retaking possession of premises and to allow continued access - Court dismissed application for injunction on grounds of balance of convenience and adequacy of damages - Serious issues to be tried exist, but not in favor of injunction. (Paras 35-73)
(B) Tenancy Agreement - Terms and conditions of tenancy arrangement governed by letter of offer - Breaches by Plaintiff included unauthorized renovations and failure to obtain necessary approvals - Termination of tenancy deemed lawful due to breaches. (Paras 24-26, 20-23)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff filed suit claiming wrongful termination of tenancy and seeking damages and restitution for renovations. Defendants alleged breaches of tenancy terms, including unauthorized construction and failure to submit plans for approval. (Paras 3-4, 20-23)
Findings of Court:
Court found that while serious issues existed, the balance of convenience favored the Defendants, and damages were deemed an adequate remedy for the Plaintiff. (Paras 52-72)
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether serious questions existed to be tried, the balance of convenience regarding the injunction, and whether damages were an adequate remedy. (Paras 40-70)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants due to their legal ownership of the premises and the potential for financial loss and damage to reputation. The Court found that damages could adequately compensate the Plaintiff if the termination was found unlawful. (Paras 53-72)
Result: Application for interim injunction dismissed with costs awarded to Defendants.
Introduction
[1] The Specific Relief Act 1950 allows the Court when faced with an application to grant remedies of an equitable nature in the forms of injunctions. This judgment deals with such an application.
[2] The Plaintiff herein had commenced these proceedings by filing the Writ and Statement of Claim on 15 December 2024. Central to this dispute is a tenancy arrangement between the 1st Defendant (D1) and the Plaintiff (P) in respect of Lot No F-1,2,3,4,5,6 and O-1,2,3,4,5,6, 1st Floor and 2nd Floor, Crowne Plaza Penang Straits City, Jalan Bagan Luar, Bandar Selat, 12000 Butterworth, Pulau Pinang (hereinafter referred to as "the said demised premises") in which D1 through their solicitors had terminated such tenancy arrangement vide letter dated 14 November 2024.
[3] P's claim in this suit is for a declaration that P is a tenant and that the termination of the tenancy wrongful. P also seeks a refund of deposits paid and restitution for all expenses incurred in relation to renovations carried out as well as damages.
[4] Apart from D1, the 2nd to 6th Defendants (D2 to D6) are/were employees of D1 whereas the 7th and 8th Defendants (D7 and D8) are purportedly related to D1.
[5] Upon D1 to D6 filing their Memorandum of Appearance and prior to them filing their Statement of Defence, P on 15 January 2025 filed encl 9 on an ex-parte basis with a certificate of urgency seeking inter alia an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants and/or their agents from retaking possession of the said demised premises and/or to allow P continued access to the said demised premises as well as to injunct the Defendants from interfering with P's right as a tenant.
[6] The injunction sought was interim in nature pending the final disposal of the entire suit.
[7] At the first case management on 17 January 2025, although encl 9 states that it is ex-parte, learned Counsel for D1 to D6 was present. The Court then proceeded to fix the hearing of encl 9 on 4 March 2025 on an inter partes basis and directed parties to file their respective affidavits and written submissions.
[8] In the meantime, to preserve the subject matter of encl 9, the Court made an ad interim Order pending the disposal of encl 9 ie that the Defendants were not to remove any materials or to retake possession of the said demised premises and although P could remain in possession of the site, they were not to carry out any further renovations on site pending disposal of encl 9.
[9] The parties thereafter filed their respective affidavits and written submissions as directed. After hearing learned Counsel submit with the aid of their written submissions on 4th March 2025, the Court dismissed the injunction application in encl 9 with costs of RM7500.00.
[10] P had intimated on that day that they would file an appeal against such a decision and in fact, since filed their notice of appeal on 7th March 2025. As such, the Court will set out here in below the salient facts and the reasons for dismissing encl 9.
Salient Facts
[11] The Defendants have in their written submission set out extensively the background facts leading to the dispute herein and those facts can be summarized as follows.
[12] D1 is the registered owner and landlord of the said demised premises.
[13] D1 vide their letter offer dated 16th August 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the said letter of offer") [see Exhibit "THY-1" of encl 22] offered a fixed-term tenancy of the said demised premises to P subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said letter of offer as well as such other terms and conditions to be set out in a formal tenancy agreement to be prepared and executed by D1 and P subsequently.
[14] The following are, in essence, some of the salient terms and conditions set out in the said letter of offer:
a. the term of the tenancy is for three (3) years only (Item 4, Schedule 1 of the said letter of offer);
b. the said demised premises shall be used only for operating a karaoke, massage cen
