Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2051
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
PRITAM SINGH AGENCY SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: AA-22NCvC-102-11/2023]
An injunction requires a bona fide issue to be tried, adequacy of damages as a remedy, and a balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff; failure to meet these conditions results in dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Hire-Purchase Agreements - Breach of Contract - Injunction - The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendant for repossession of vehicles due to alleged breaches of hire-purchase agreements during Moratorium 4. The court found no bona fide issue to warrant trial, as the plaintiffs failed to act in good faith and did not utilize the new payment account provided by the defendant. (Paras 10, 12, 24)
(B) Injunctive Relief - Requirements - The court reiterated that for an injunction to be granted, a serious issue must be present, damages must not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience must favor the plaintiff. (Paras 10, 11, 20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs entered into hire-purchase agreements for 12 vehicles, facing payment issues due to a banking system glitch after receiving moratoriums. The defendant attempted to repossess the vehicles after the plaintiffs failed to make payments. (Paras 2-8)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a serious issue for trial, and damages were deemed an adequate remedy. The balance of convenience favored the defendant, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application. (Paras 24)
Issues: The main issues included whether a bona fide issue existed for trial, whether damages were adequate, and whether the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction. (Paras 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs' failure to act in good faith and their continued use of vehicles without payment undermined their claim for an injunction. The balance of convenience favored the defendant, who faced financial harm. (Paras 12, 20, 24)
Result: Application for injunction dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1]The plaintiffs, in encl 5, are seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant against the background facts narrated hereafter.
Background Facts
[2] The dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant arose from several hire-purchase agreements entered into by the parties between 2016 and 2019. Under these agreements, the plaintiffs acquired 12 vehicles, which were integral parts of plaintiffs' business of transporting palm oil products.
[3] In response to financial challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and further exacerbated by subsequent floods, the plaintiffs applied for and were granted four moratoriums by the defendant, which deferred the plaintiffs' payment obligations. The last of these, referred to as "Moratorium 4," was agreed upon on 30 March 2022, covering the period from 30 March 2022 to 31 August 2022. The plaintiffs were then required to resume payments starting in October 2022. The Moratorium 4, being the final Moratorium.
[4] The issue began on 3 October 2022, when the plaintiffs attempted to make the required monthly payments for all 12 accounts. While the defendant successfully processed the payment for one account, ie. for vehicle registration No NDF 6180 in account No:788803388203, the payments for the remaining 11 accounts were unsuccessful. They were kicked back into the plaintiffs' CIMB account. The plaintiffs contend that these kicked back were not due to any fault on their part but were the result of the defendant's banking system glitch/errors. Following these failed payments, the plaintiffs contacted the defendant to seek clarification and resolution.
[5] The defendant, in response, attributed the kicked back of payments to "system enhancements" and offered the plaintiffs a new account number through which payments could be made. The plaintiffs, however, argued that the defendant unilaterally changed the terms of the agreements without their consent. They further claimed that the defendant tried to force them into signing new variation agreements that were never requested by the plaintiffs.
[6] Not accepting the defendant's proposal to overcome the issue, the plaintiffs continues to attempt making failed payments as the banking system remains unresolved.
[7] The plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered significant financial losses, not only due to their inability to make payments but also because of the negative impact on their business reputation caused by the defendant reporting them to Bank Negara Malaysia for defaults under the Central Credit Reference Information System ("CCRIS"). This, according to the plaintiffs, severely affected their ability to secure new contracts under their business.
[8] The defendant, on the other hand, due to non-payment, resorted to taking steps to repossess the vehicles, which prompted the plaintiffs to file this suit. Also, the plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from repossessing the vehicles until the matter could be resolved at trial. They argued that the defendant's refusal to accept payments, coupled with its attempts to unilaterally alter the terms of the agreements, constituted a breach of the original hire-purchase agreements under Moratorium 4.
[9] The defendant countered the plaintiff on the issue of payment, stating that they have adequately addressed the issue but that the plaintiffs failed to make any payments even after being provided with a new account.
Applicable Law
[10] In Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor @ Harun Abdullah & Ors; ; [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 AMR 373, the Court outlined the steps a judge should follow when assessing an application for an interlocutory injunction. The inquiry should proceed along the following lines:
a) Bona Fide Serious Issue to Be Tried: The judge must determine if the facts in totality disclose a serious issue requiring the matter to proceed to trial. At this stage, no decision on the merits is to be made. In the event that no serious issue is
