Damages from an interlocutory injunction can only be awarded if there is an express trial judge finding that the injunction was wrongly granted.

Introduction

[1] Is this Court empowered to order assessment of damages after setting aside an interlocutory injunction if and only if there is an express finding by the trial judge that the injunction ought not to have been granted in the first place? That was the issue of law for determination when the 2nd Defendant's application (encl 413) for an inquiry and assessment of damages (caused by an interlocutory injunction) was heard by this Court.

[2] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff cited a judgment of the Court of Appeal as authority to resist the 2nd Defendant's application (encl 413) for an inquiry and assessment of damages. I am mindful that the doctrine of stare decisis is unequivocal in requiring this Court to adhere to precedents set by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. Since the said authority answered the above question of law in the affirmative, I was constrained to dismiss the 2nd Defendant's application. The salient facts and authority cited by the Plaintiff set out below.

Background Facts

[3] In this case, the Plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendant from was dismissed. The prayers were to restrain the Defendants from carrying out any activities involving and/or using and/or in relation to a condominium known as B-33-03, Suasana Sentral Condo, Kuala Lumpur ("the said Property") including but not limited to the transfer of the title of the said Property, and generally from taking any further action that may be prejudicial to the Plaintiff until this action is heard and/or disposed.

[4] On appeal, the Court of Appeal decided in favour of the Plaintiff and issued the injunction sought by the Plaintiff ("the said injunction") on 26 September 2018.

[5] My predecessor Justice Rozana binti Ali Yusoff decided to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim against all three Defendants on 9 August 2023 - which was after a full trial of this action. There was another civil suit in this Court No.WA-22NCvC-158-03/2017 [Renganathan Ravindranath Ponniah v. Anil Kumar Chigurupati & Ors [2019] MLRHU 206] ("Suit No 158") which had been ordered to be tried together with this civil suit. In Suit No 158, the plaintiff is the 2nd Defendant herein (Renganathan Ravindranath Ponniah) while the first defendant there is the Plaintiff herein (Anil Kumar Chigurupati). In Suit No 158, Justice Rozana decided to allow the claim of the plaintiff there (the 2nd Defendant herein) against the first defendant (the Plaintiff here). Her Ladyship also ordered damages to be assessed for loss of use of the said Property and the entry of a caveat, to be paid by the first defendant (the Plaintiff here) to the plaintiff there (the 2nd Defendant herein). In other words, there is already an order in Suit No. 158 for the Plaintiff in this action (as the first defendant there) to pay damages.

[6] On the day of judgment, which was on 9th August 2023, no order was made by Justice Rozana regarding the said injunction; probably because neither the delighted Defendants' counsel nor the Plaintiff's disappointed counsel thought of it then.

[7] A screenshot of the sealed Judgment dated 9 August 2023 in this civil suit is shown below

Penghakiman

tuntutan Plaintif di atas ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan pada 26 April 2021, 23 May 2022, 24 May 2022, 25 June 2022, 2 July 2022, 26 August 2022, 27 August 2022, 15 September 2022, 23 February 2023, 24 February 2023, 9 March 2023 dan 24 March 2023 DAN SETELAH MENDENGAR keterangan saksi-saksi Plaintif dan saksi-saksi Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga DAN SETELAH MEMBACA hujahan- hujahan bertulis Plaintif, Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga DAN SETELAH tuntutan Plaintif ditetapkan untuk Keputusan pada hari ini DAL AM KEHADIRAN Krishna Dall