Enforcement of prohibitory orders remains valid post-settlement if the settlement terms are not complied with.

[1] This is an appeal against the High Court registrar's refusal to set aside a prohibitory order.

[2] The Defendant/Appellant is a private limited company and involved in the property development business.

[3] The Plaintiff/Respondent is also a private limited company and involved in the construction business.

Salient Background Facts

[4] The Plaintiff was appointed by a Dinamik Maju Corporation ("DMC") to carry out construction works pursuant to a construction contract.

[5] By reason of disputes and differences that arose between the Plaintiff and DMC under the construction contract, the Plaintiff initiated adjudication proceedings against DMC pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA").

[6] The Plaintiff on 5 August 2015 obtained a favourable decision in the adjudication proceedings and registered the decision in the High Court for enforcement as a judgment of the Court.

[7] The Plaintiff thereafter on 29 September 2015 commenced garnishment proceedings against the Defendant for the sum of RM3,752,287.21 due under the judgment and the garnishment order absolute was made on 11 March 2016.

[8] On 11 July 2016, the Plaintiff, Defendant and DMC executed a settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement") whereby the Defendant would, amongst others, transfer the Defendant's property held under H.S.(D) 233041, PT no 4674, s 7, Bandar Shah Alam, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor ("Bungalow") to the Plaintiff in full and final settlement of the adjudication decision.

[9] The Defendant was subsequently, in breach of the Settlement Agreement, unable to transfer the Property to the Plaintiff.

[10] As the result, the Plaintiff applied for a prohibitory order from the High Court on the Bungalow as well as on the Defendant's property held under PN48692, Lot no 10511, Mukim Bukit Raja, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor ("Empty Land") and under PN110641, Lot no 86808, Mukim Bukit Raja, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor ("Land") and accordingly auction of all these properties. However, the auctions were not successful.

[11] As the result, the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 6 July 2018 entered into a consent order ("Consent Order") on the following terms:

Consent Order

THIS ACTION having been called today with the presence of Jennifer Chandran, solicitors for the Plaintiff, and Lee Xin Div, solicitors for the Defendant AND UPON THE PARTIES having agreed to the terms herein IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT that:

1. The parties hereby agree to fully and finally settle the following subject matters, suits and /or proceedings on the terms of this Consent Order:

1.1 All disputes between the Plaintiff, Defendant and/or Dinamik Maju Corporation Sdn Bhd ("Dinamik") in respect of a project known as "Cadangan pembangunan 3 unit banglo, 40 unit rumah berkembar 3 tingkat serta 1 unit pondok pengawal dan 1 unit pejabat pengurusan korporat di atas Lot 10292 (PT 3070), Jalan Merah Kesumba U9/18, Monterez golf & country Club, Seksyen U9, Bandaraya Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan" ("Project");

1.2 Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") and the Sale and Purchase Agreement both dated 11 July 2016, including all proceedings stated in Annexure 1 of the Settlement Agreement;

1.3 Kuala Lumpur High Court Execution No.: WA-36-2-02/2017 ("Suit 2") which is respect of the property held under "Pajakan Negeri Hakmilik No. 48692, No Lot 10511, Mukim Bukit Raja, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor" ("Empty Land");

1.4 Kuala Lumpur High Court Execution No.: WA-36-14-07/2017 ("Suit 14"), which is in respect of the property held