Court emphasized adherence to planning laws and public safety in land development, granting injunctions to prevent unauthorized construction affecting neighbouring properties.

JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] Since the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs against the defendants on 24 February 2020 to the time of writing of these grounds of judgment, 14 interlocutory applications have been filed by the parties, to be exact, nine by the plaintiffs and five by the defendants. Needless to say, this case is a classic example of a long, bitter and intense dispute by one group of parties on one hand against the proposed development of land by another group of parties located in close proximity to the former's properties.

[2] These grounds of judgment set out the full reasons of this Court in relation to the following applications:

(a) the 1st defendant's ('D1') and the 2nd defendant's ('D2') application in encl 65 dated 8 May 2020 ('EOT Application') for an extension of time ('EOT') to carry out and complete the works as stated in para (B) of the Ad Interim Injunction Order dated 28 February 2020. The EOT Application was heard on 25 June 2020, 19 March 2021 and 28 May 2021 and it was dismissed by the Court on 31 May 2021 with costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs, subject to allocatur;

(b) the plaintiffs' application in encl 4 dated 21 February 2020 for a restraining injunction and a mandatory injunction ('Injunction Application'). The Injunction Application was heard on 19 March 2021 and 28 May 2021 and it was allowed by the Court on 31 May 2021 with costs of RM30,000.00, subject to allocatur; and

(c) the defendants' application in encl 228 dated 10 March 2021 ('Recusal Application') to remove or recuse the Court Expert, Ir Dr Ooi Teik Aun ('Dr Ooi'). The Recusal Application was heard on 30 June 2021 and it was dismissed by the Court on 22 July 2021 with costs of RM8,000.00 to be paid forthwith by the defendants to the plaintiffs, subject to allocatur.

Salient Facts

[3] The salient background facts are gathered mainly from the Amended Statement of Claim ('SOC') dated 30 March 2020 (encl 54), the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (encl 59) and the plaintiffs' Affidavit In Support ('AIS') of the Injunction Application affirmed by Izwan Bin Abdullah @ Loke Kok Sing, Senior Vice President of Development & Engineering of the 2nd plaintiff ('P2') on 21 February 2020 (encls 5-27).

[4] The 1st plaintiff ('P1') is a company registered under the Companies Act 2016 [Act 777] with its registered address at 24th Floor, Wisma Genting, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur The principal business of P1 is in the development, sale and rental of land, rental of apartment units at Gunung Ulu Kali (or more commonly known as Genting Highlands) and the undertaking of other property development projects.

[5] P2 is a public listed company registered under Act 777 with the same registered address as P1. The principal business of P2 is in the integrated resort business at Genting Highlands with the principal activities in leisure and hospitality services which comprise gaming, hotels, food and beverage, theme parks, retail and entertainment attractions.

[6] The 3rd plaintiff ('P3') is a company registered under Act 777 with the same registered address as aforestated. The principal business of P3 is in the tourist resort business at Genting Highlands with the principal activities in leisure and hospitality services which comprise hotel and amusement activities.

[7] P1 and P3 are wholly owned subsidiary companies of P2. The plaintiffs are members of the Genting Malaysia Group of Companies.

[8] D1 is a company registered under Act 777 with its registered address at L8-02, 8th Floor, Brem Mall, Off Jalan Kepong, 52000 Kuala Lumpur. The principal business of D1 is in property development.

[9] D2 is a public listed company registered under Act 777 with its registered address at Lot 4.03A, 4th Floor, Plaza Prima, 4 ½ Miles Jalan Kelang Lama, 58200 Kuala Lumpur. The principal business of D2 is in investment holding, building construction and civil engineering contracting.

[10] The 3rd defendant ('D