Back
2020 MarsdenLR 1350
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
DIGITAL TEMPO SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENGANGKUTAN AWAM PUTRAJAYA TRAVEL & TOURS SDN BHD (ENCLS 3 & 12) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCC-16-01/2020]
An interlocutory injunction can be granted to preserve the status quo pending trial without requiring specific prayers for permanent injunction, contrary to previous interpretations.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act 1950 – Sections 4, 41, 42, 50 to 52 – Parties disputed the contract duration and the right of the Plaintiff to extend the appointment. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims for injunction, declaration, and damages were valid causes of action. The Defendant's application to set aside an ex parte interim injunction was dismissed, affirming the need for maintenance of status quo pending trial. (Paras 16, 28, 72)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed wrongful termination of contract by the Defendant, alleging an extension clause was improperly rejected.
Issues
: The primary issues were the validity of the contract's duration and the Plaintiff's right to extend without Defendant's consent.
Findings of Court:
Court determined that serious questions requiring further investigation were present and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled that an interim injunction was appropriate despite the Defendant's arguments, clarifying the conditions under which such relief may be granted without specific prayers for permanent relief.
Result:
Injunction granted pending the full trial.
JUDGMENT
(Enclosures 3 And 12)
Introduction And Background
[1] The Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant in 2017 for the execution of the off-street and on-street car park operations for the whole of Putrajaya using the payment system and electronic system of Parkbyphone.
[2] The appointment was stipulated to be for an initial period of three (3) years, with an optional extension clause for a further two (2) years. The express words on cls 2B(i)(d) and 2(B)(i)(e) of the Contract are as follows:
"d) Tempoh Pelantikan ini adalah selama tiga (3) tahun dengan opsyen lanjutan selama dua (2) tahun dengan menggunakan terma dan syarat yang sama seperti yang terkandung di dalam surat ini..."
e) Tempoh lanjutan tamat tempoh lima (5) tahun pertama boleh dilaksanakan dengan tempoh serta terma dan syarat yang sama setelah mendapat persetujuan bersama di antara pihak PAPTT dan DTSB."
[Exhibit "R1" to Plaintiffs Affidavit-in-Support, Encl 4].
[3] By its letter dated 2 January 2020, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Defendant will continue with the appointment until year 2022, ie two (2) years after the first term of three (3) years: Exhibit R3 to Plaintiff's Affidavit-in-Support: encl 4.
[4] On or about 13 January 2020 the Defendant served its letter dated 3 January 2020 on the Plaintiff stating as follows:
"RE: NOTICE OF EXPIRY OF APPOINTMENT
We refer to Digital Tempo Sdn Bhd's appointment as provider of the parking system known as Putrajaya Parkbyphone for a three (3) year term commencing 6th February 2017 pursuant to our letter reference PAPTT/KEW/KONTRAK/46 Jil 1(4) dated 10th July, 2017.
We wish to advise that we will not be exercising the option to extend the appointment and as such it will terminate on 5th February, 2017. Our decision is based on issues and incidences encountered during your term of appointment which, among others, included recurring and persistent customer complaints regarding the efficacy of your system at entry and exit points.
We thank you for your services and look forward to your kind cooperation in a smooth handover of the parking sites on the above termination date."
(Exhibit "R2" to Encl 4: Plaintiffs Affidavit-in-Support).
[5] By the Plaintiff's solicitor's letter dated 24 January 2020 (Exhibit "R7" to Plaintiffs Affidavit-in-Support, Encl 4), the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to "cease and desist letter for pre-termination of contract", and took the position that the Defendant's letter dated 3 January 2020 constituted premature termination of the contract. The Plaintiff through this letter also gave notice of intention to commence legal proceedings for premature and wrongful termination. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the solicitors also stated as follows:
"We have our client's instructions to state that para 2(B)(i)(d) of your letter of appointment dated 10th July 2017 does not state that the option to extend the contract is to be exercised by your company. As such, our client has rightfully exercised the said option in their letter dated 2nd January 2020."
The Plaintiff also asked the Defendant to withdraw the letter dated 3rd January 2020 and to honour the extended period of two (2) years.
[6] In reply thereto, the Defendant sent its letter dated 20 January 2020 to the Plaintiff in the following terms:
"RE Your Letter Reference RKS/1938/2020 Dated 24 January 2020
We refer to the above letter that you wrote to us. We should appreciate if you would kindly advise your Client that our decision to not extend your Client's appointment beyond the stated period of appointment of three (3) years (refer Clause (A)(d) of the SURAT TAWARAN DAN PELANTIKAN dated 10 July 2017) is firm. We look forward to smooth and cooperative handover by your Client of the parking sites and a speedy and clean disengagement and removal of any assets belonging to your Client from the sites, if any. We shall not be responsible nor liable for any subsequent loss of or damage to any of your Client's assets should your Client so fa
