Back
2020 MarsdenLR 959
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK FEDERAL TERRITORY OF LABUAN
DPML CORPORATION BERHAD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
LEMBAGA PELABUHAN BINTULU & ORS (ENCL 3) – Respondent
[Suit No: LBN-22NCvC-2/3/2020]
Interlocutory injunctions require the establishment of a valid cause of action and serious questions to be tried; mere allegations are insufficient for their grant.
Headnote:(A) Bintulu Port Authority Act, 1981 – Sections 5A, 66A, 66B, and 66C – Interlocutory injunctions – Plaintiffs sought injunctions against eviction proceedings and management activities by the 2nd Defendant concerning port operations; however, failed to establish serious questions to be tried, thus application dismissed. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 42, 76)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs claimed that the 2nd Defendant was illegally incorporated and sought to prevent eviction from the premises. The Plaintiffs alleged that the 2nd Defendant misrepresented its intentions regarding a tender process. (Paras 10, 11, 21, 26)
Findings of Court:
No valid cause of action established for the Plaintiffs' claims, and results from tender deemed rightful. (Paras 76)
Issues
: Serious questions to be tried regarding misrepresentation by the 2nd Defendant and legality of its incorporation. (Paras 30, 31)
Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized the requirement for demonstrating a valid cause of action and the inadequacy of bare assertions as evidence. (Paras 42, 76)
Result:
Application for injunctions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] By this Ex parte Notice of Application dated 9 March 2020 (Encl 3), the Plaintiffs are applying for the following interlocutory injunctions:
(a) an Ex-Parte Injunction Order pursuant O 29 r 1(2) Rules of 2012 to prevent, prohibit, stop and/or disallow the 2nd Defendant, its employees, agents or any of them from continuing in any way an eviction proceeding against the 2nd Plaintiff; terminating and/or voiding the Agreement between the 2nd Defendant and 2nd Plaintiff; and convening any meeting, approving and/or issuing any tender until this suit is determined by the Court;
(b) An Ex-Parte Injunction Order pursuant O 29 r 1(2) Rules of 2012 to prevent, prohibit, stop and/or disallow the 2nd Defendant, its employees, agents or any of them in any way whatsoever from evicting and/or stopping the ingress and egress and/or denying the 2nd Plaintiff's occupation on property known as LOT TL 207536052, Jalan Merdeka, Daerah Labuan, Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan and the whole area known as Dermaga Merdeka and/or Merdeka Labuan Port until this suit is determined by the Court; and
(c) An Ex-Parte Injunction Order pursuant O 29 r 1(2) Rules of 2012 to prevent, prohibit, stop and/or disallow the First and 2nd Defendant, their employees, agents or any of them in any way whatsoever from participating in deciding, voting, making resolution and/or tender, discussing and/or any meeting whatsoever relating to the operation and/or management of Merdeka Labuan Port until this suit is determined by the Court.
Principles Of Law
[2] In Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & Ors, , Justice Jemuri Serjan CJ held at p 253 that:
"Two prerequisites must be present before Lord Diplock's guidelines can come into play. First, the plaintiffs' case must raise serious issues to be tried. If the plaintiffs fail at that point, there clearly is no case for an injunction. Secondly, the trial of the main suit is likely to take place in the sense that the plaintiffs' case shows that they are genuinely concerned to pursue the claim to trial and they are seeking the injunction as a means of holding operation pending the trial. Once it can be established that there are serious issues to be tried then the other guidelines must be invoked. The Court has to consider:
(a) whether damages are an adequate remedy;
(b) where does the 'balance of convenience' lie; and
(c) are there any 'special factors'."
[3] For this application, it is for the Plaintiffs to establish that:
(a) based on the evidence as presented, there is a serious question to be tried in respect of the Plaintiff's claim for reliefs.
(b) that the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury for which damages will not be an adequate compensation unless the injunctions are granted.
(c) that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunctions sought for.
In considering in whose favour the balance of convenience lies, the Court may consider factors such as delay on the part of the Plaintiffs, difficulty in estimating damages of the respective parties if the interlocutory injunctions are granted or not granted in the event of the parties succeeded or failed in the trial of the action.
See also: Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor & Ors, (CA) and American Cyanamid Co v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504.
[4] At this interlocutory stage, it is not for the Court to conduct a trial on the affidavits and decide finally on the issues in respect of the rights of the parties.
[5] Though, it is not for the Court to conduct a trial on affidavits, it is also not for the Court at this stage to take all assertions or allegations in the affidavits as proof of the facts. The Court has a duty to undertake a qualitative analysis of the affidavit evidence.
[6] Thus, in Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Bhd v. Yong Liuk Thin & ors, , Justice Gopal Sri Ram JCA stated at p 219 that:
"Counsel for the respondents took the view that the learned judge ought not to have expressed what he reg
