The court clarified the requirements for granting interim injunctions, distinguishing between Mareva and Proprietary injunctions, and upheld the Plaintiff's application based on compliance with legal standards.

JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy JC:

Introduction

[1] On the 22nd of March, 2024, I heard the applications in encl 4 (ex-parte application by the Plaintiff for a number of injunctive orders against the Defendants) and encl 29 (application by the Defendants to set aside encl 4). After considering the submissions raised and the authorities relied by the parties, this Court allowed the application in encl 4 and dismissed encl 29 with costs of RM8,000, subject to allocatur.

[2] The Defendants have appealed against this Court's decision in allowing the Plaintiff's application for an interim injunction pending the disposal of the main action and in dismissing the Defendants' application to set aside the interim injunction.

[3] The grounds for my decision are set out below.

The Overarching Issue

[4] The principal issue in this interlocutory application is whether the requirements for the injunctive reliefs sought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants have been satisfied.

Prior Proceedings

[5] It is essential to outline the proceedings prior to the hearing of encl 4 and encl 29. This will provide a comprehensive overview of the events and hearings that took place before the 22nd of March, 2024

The Ex Parte Hearing on the 30th of January, 2024

[6] At this ex parte hearing of encl 4, the Plaintiff put forward its submissions to make its case for the granting of the numerous injunctive orders sought.

[7] As this was an ex parte application, the Plaintiff was queried by this Court as to, inter alia, the possible grounds or defences that may be raised by the Defendants and on any facts which may lead the Court not to grant the application ex parte or at all, to which the Plaintiff responded that it did not think that there would be any valid grounds or defences that could be raised by the Defendants or the existence of any facts that may lead this Court not to allow its application.

[8] After a careful examination of the Plaintiff's affidavit in support of its application and a consideration of the pre-requisites for the granting of the interim reliefs, this Court made an order in terms as per prayers (1) - (6) in encl 4 with costs in the cause. The injunctive orders were as follows:

1) Suatu perintah injunksi bahawa Defendan-Defendan Pertama dan Ke-2, iaitu AZLAN BIN MUHAMAD dan PERENCANA DINGIN SDN BHD, dan/atau mana-mana bank atau institusi Kewangan di Malaysia yang mempunyai sebarang urusan dengan Defendan-Defendan tersebut DIHALANG DAN DITEGAH, samada dengan sendirinya atau melalui pengarah-pengarah, pengkhidmat-pengkhidmat, pegawai-pegawai, agen-agen atau mana-mana di antara mereka atau sebaliknya, daripada menggunakan, mengeluarkan, membayar, mendebitkan, mencagar, melupuskan atau dengan apa-apa cara yang lain sekalipun berurusan dengan sejumlah wang sehingga RM1,919,396.35 yang disimpan ke dalam dan berkedudukan kredit di dalam akaun-akaun bank kepada Defendan-Defendan tersebut dengan bank-bank dan/atau institusi-institusi kewangan ini;

2) Suatu perintah injunksi bahawa Defendan-Defendan Pertama dan Ke-3, iaitu AZLAN BIN MUHAMAD dan JANA ANUGERAH SDN BHD, dan/atau mana-mana bank atau institusi kewangan di Malaysia yang mempunyai sebarang urusan dengan Defendan-Defendan tersebut DIHALANG DAN DITEGAH, samada dengan sendirinya atau melalui pengarah-pengarah, pengkhidmat-pengkhidmat, pegawai-pegawai, agen-agen atau mana-mana di antara mereka atau sebaliknya, daripada menggunakan, mengeluarkan, membayar, mendebitkan, mencagar, melupuskan atau dengan apa-apa cara yang lain sekalipun berurusan dengan sejumlah wang sehingga RM478,497.90 yang disimpan ke dalam dan berkedudukan kredit di dalam akaun-akaun bank kepada Defendan-Defendan tersebut dengan bank-bank dan/atau institusi-institusi kewangan ini;

3) Suatu perintah injunksi bahawa Defendan-Defendan Pertama dan Ke-4, iaitu AZLAN BIN MUHAMAD dan SYUKOR BIN MD SAYUTI, dan/atau mana-mana bank atau institusi kewangan di Malaysia yang mempunyai sebarang urusan dengan Defendan-Defendan tersebut DIHALANG DAN DITEGA