Back
Next 
2018 MarsdenLR 679
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SIGUR ROS SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD & ANOR (ENCL 4) – Respondent
[Guaman No: BA-22NCVC-466-08/2017]
Petitioner Advocates:Mah Sue Ann,Santhyaa ,Respondent Advocate: Claudia Cheah
An interlocutory injunction requires serious issues to be tried, adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience; lack of these led to dismissal.
Headnote:The legal framework under O 29 r 1 and para 6 of the Courts of Judicature Act governs the Plaintiffs' application for interlocutory injunctions to restrain the First Defendant from asset dispossession pending trial. The Court found no serious issues for trial given the Plaintiffs' admissions of indebtedness, hence denying the injunction sought. The findings were based on the adequacy of damages and the discretionary balance of justice weighing against granting such relief, given the Plaintiffs' failure to repay debts despite multiple extensions (para 26-54). The Plaintiffs' request for interim measures fails as damages were deemed adequate, thus the injunction would not maintain the status quo effectively.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of injunction application process. (Para 1) |
[1] This is an application by the above named Plaintiffs, pursuant to O 29 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 read together with para 6 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act (Encl 4) seeking for interlocutory reliefs in the form of Injunctions against the First Defendant by way of summons in chambers (inter partes) dated 7 August 2017. Through Encl 4, the Plaintiff is seeking the following prayers:
