JUDGMENT

Faridz Gohim Abdullah JC:

I. Introduction And Procedural Context

[1] This matter concerns an application by the 3rd Defendant, Studio Twenty Three Sdn Bhd ("the Company"), for continuation of interim injunctive relief comprising prohibitory, Mareva and mandatory orders against the Plaintiffs, Victor Wang and Wang Zheng ("the Plaintiffs"). The application arises from a corporate dispute involving allegations of director misconduct, asset misappropriation and systematic interference with the Company's business operations as the exclusive luxury nightclub operator in the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX).

[2] The Plaintiffs had withdrawn their claim against the defendants on 5 June 2025 with costs. On 30 June 2025 the defendants filed their Amended Statement of Defence and Amended Counterclaim. The Plaintiffs then filed their Amended Reply to Defence and Amended Defence to Counterclaim on 16 July 2025. The ex parte Ad Interim Injunction was granted by this court on 22 May 2025 and varied on 5 June 2025. The Ad Interim Injunction became absolute on 20 August 2025.

[3] The salient terms of the Ad Interim Injunction Order are as follows:

(a) The Plaintiffs are banned from entering within 500m of Lane 23 premises, harassing staff or customers, accessing the company's digital assets (CCTV, social media, passwords, WhatsApp), publishing defamatory content, representing themselves as company representatives, interfering with business operations, or hiring third parties (including security guards or criminal groups) to monitor or harass the business.

(b) The Plaintiffs' assets are frozen up to RM500,000.00 each. They cannot remove assets from Malaysia or dispose of, diminish, or otherwise deal with any assets (including bank accounts, shares, or property), whether in Malaysia or abroad. Sale proceeds must be paid to the court or to a solicitors' trust account.

(c) The Plaintiffs must immediately remove all defamatory publications from all platforms and disclose all assets in writing within 7 days via affidavit, including bank accounts, shares, loans, debts owed to them, property, trust holdings and investments.

[4] The Plaintiffs may withdraw RM1,000.00 per person per week for daily expenses, RM5,000.00 monthly for legal fees, and other reasonable amounts approved by this court, with supporting documents. The penal clause on non-compliance was endorsed under O 45 r 7 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC 2012).

[5] Having considered the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied that the continuation of the Ad Interim Injunction is justified, to prevent further irreparable harm to the Company.

II. The Principles Of Injunction

(a) Prohibitory Injunction: The Keet Gerald Francis Test

[6] The position on interim prohibitory injunctions is governed by the court of Appeal decision in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor @ Harun Abdullah & Ors; [1995] 1 MLJ 193; [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 AMR 373 CA, which established a tripartite test requiring: (1) a serious question to be tried; (2) that damages would not provide an adequate remedy; and (3) that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. This test was reaffirmed by the Federal court in Jaya Sudhir Jayaram v. Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors; [2019] 5 MLJ 1; [2019] 7 CLJ 395; [2019] 4 AMR 517 FC, which emphasized that the threshold for "serious question" means the applicant need not demonstrate a prima facie case likely to succeed, but merely that there are bona fide triable issues warranting court intervention.

[7] The court of Appeal in Sv Beverages Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Kickapoo (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd; [2008] 4 MLJ 187; [2008] 4 CLJ 20 CA clarified that courts should not attempt to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit or decide difficult questions of law requiring detailed argument when determining whether serious issues exist. The focus is on whether the pleaded case, supported by evidence, discloses a reasonably arguable cause of action.

(b) Mareva Injunction: The Aspatra Framework

[8] Th