Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1098
HIGH COURT MALAYA GEORGETOWN
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN BAY AVENUE – Appellant
Versus
CHE SEOW FOON @ CHOW SEOW FOON & ORS (ENCL 3) – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-22NCvC-58-03/2022]
Injunctions should not be granted when damages are an adequate remedy, and courts must consider the balance of convenience and impact on all parties involved.
Headnote:(A) Strata Act – The court evaluates the circumstances under which an injunction may be granted, particularly distinguishing between prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. (Paras 10-12)
(B)
The court finds that damages are an adequate remedy, thus not justifying the granting of an injunction. (Paras 15, 21)
(C)
The balance of convenience must consider the interests of both parties when deciding on the injunction application. (Paras 14, 18)
(D)
Courts are to assess the impact of allowing or refusing the injunction on all stakeholders involved. (Paras 13, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of its claim for an injunction to retain management control pending AGM due to disputes arising over compliance with the Strata Act. (Paras 1–9)
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice if the injunction is refused, and management challenges must be resolved in the AGM. (Paras 20-22)
Issues
: Whether the injunction should be granted considering the adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. (Paras 15, 18)
Ratio Decidendi:
The court rules that an injunction shall not be granted when damages serve as an adequate remedy, thus prioritizing practical resolution of management affairs. (Paras 15, 20)
Result:
Injunction sought by the Plaintiff dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 3)
[1] This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against this court's decision on April 1, 2022, in dismissing its claim for an injunction with costs in the cause in encl 3. This matter is heard together with PA-22NCvC-58-03/2022 Parties are referred to as they were in the High court.
[2] There were 3 applications filed by parties.
(i) The Plaintiff's application to set aside the ex-parte injunction order dated 9 November 2021. Defendants obtained (in the High court) (Encl 16);
(ii) Inter-parte hearing of the Plaintiff's application for injunction (Encl 3); and
(iii) At the inter-parte hearing of the application of the Plaintiff for an injunction (in Sessions court Civil Suit No: PA-A52NCVC-118-10/2021 for injunction (Encl 3).
[3] Two Session court Cases filed before High court case.
(i) Sessions court Civil Suit No: PA-A52NCVC-114-10/2021 against RCC Property Management Sdn Bhd and the following were obtained:
(a) 18 October 2021 - ex-parte injunction order obtained (refer to LCL-2, page 35 of encl 13);
(b) 29 October 2021 - ad interim Injunction Order obtained.
(Refer to exhibit LCL2, p 40 of encl 13).
(ii) In Sessions court Civil Suit No: PA-A52NCVC-118- 10/2021 against the Defendants ("newly elected committee") the following were obtained:
(a) 21 October 2021 - ex-parte injunction order obtained. (refer to exhibit LCL-31 (p 308 of encl 13);
(b) 3 November 2021 - ad Interim Injunction Order obtained. (refer to exhibit LCL35, p 372 of encl 18).
[4] Both orders contained the restraining order:
"Satu injunksi bahawa Defendan-Defendan dan/atau wakil mereka dan/atau ejen mereka dan/atau pekerja mereka dengan serta-merta dilarang untuk membuat sebarang representasi kepada mana-mana individu dan mana-mana pihak bahawa Defendan adalah ahli jawatankuasa pengurusan untuk Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue sementara menunggu pelupusan tindakan ini."
[5] On 22 November 2021, the High court (in suit No PA-22NCvC-174-10/2021) granted an ad interim injunction (with modified terms as compared with the ex-parte injunction dated 9 November 2021) to preserve the status quo of the matter. At the same time, this court has expressly ruled that the order of the Sessions court Civil Suit No: PA-A52NCVC-118- 10/2021 for an injunction (Encl 3) be continued and enforced.
[6] The Defendants obtained the following ex-parte mandatory injunctions in encl 3:
(a) Sehingga pelupusan/penyelesaian muktamad Writ tersebut atau sehingga Perintah selanjutnya daripada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini, Defendan-Defendan, wakil, ejen dan/atau pekerjanya termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada Malayan Banking Bhd dikehendaki untuk menukar penandatangan bank kepada anggota jawatankuasa yang baru dengan serta-merta;
(b) Sehingga pelupusan/penyelesaian muktamad Writ tersebut atau sehingga Perintah selanjutnya daripada Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, Defendan-Defendan dikehendaki untuk menyerahkan milikan pejabat pengurusan yang beralamat di B-8-3, Lorong Bayan Indah 3, 11900 Bayan Lepas Pulau Pinang kepada anggota-anggota jawatankuasa yang baru (nama sepertimana yang tertera di Lampiran B), wakil, ejen dan/atau pekerjanya;
(c) Sehingga pelupusan/penyelesaian muktamad Writ tersebut atau sehingga Perintah selanjutnya daripada Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, Defendan-Defendan, wakil, ejen dan/atau pekerjanya dengan serta-merta memulangkan kesemua dokumen-dokumen Plaintif kepada anggota-anggota jawatankuasa yang baru (nama sepertimana yang tertera di Lampiran B), wakil, ejen dan/atau pekerjanya.
Facts Of The Case
[7] On 23 September 2021, 70 residents of Bay Avenue had written to the Commissioner of Buildings to complain that the Office Bearers of the Plaintiff had exceeded 3 terms as provided for under the Strata Act. They demanded for the AGM to be conducted by the current office bearers.
[8] On 29 September 2021, the Commissioner of Building, ordered that the AGM to be conducted within one month from 29 September 2021. On 14 October 2021 the EGM was scheduled to be held. On 7 October 2021,
