SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 6553

Ong Thuan Ming – Appellant
Versus
VTI Vintage Bhd & Ors – Respondent



The adequacy of damages negates the need for an injunction in contract cases, particularly where performance issues are disputed without clear evidence of defaults.

Headnote:(A) Contracts - Settlement Agreement - Injunctive Relief - The court evaluated the claims of the plaintiff, who sought specific performance of settlement terms articulating clear obligations on the defendants to discharge guarantees. It established that damages serve as an adequate remedy for breaches regarding banking facilities. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9, 10)

(B) Injunctions - Mandatory Injunctions - The court amplified the principles surrounding the issuance of mandatory injunctions, delineating a higher threshold for granting such relief, emphasizing that balance of convenience must carefully weigh potential business detriment against any monetary loss from non-performance. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a former managing director, filed for specific performance of a settlement agreement stipulating the defendants' duties to discharge guarantees. The defendants contended that obligations were unfulfilled due to the plaintiff's own actions and assertion of current financial compliance. (Paras 2, 6, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that damages were an adequate remedy, whereas granting injunctive relief would cripple the defendants' operations. Consequently, the application was dismissed. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The case primarily revolved around the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claims under the settlement agreement and the appropriateness of granting an injunction based on alleged defaults by the defendants. (Paras 2, 4, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined it could not grant mandatory relief without substantial assurance of success at trial, highlighting the necessity of proving benefits significantly beyond any anticipated loss as a result of the injunction's denial. (Paras 9, 10)

Result: Application dismissed with costs.

Kang Hwee Gee J (delivering oral judgment ex tempore):

[1]This is an application (encl 4) by the plaintiff for the following orders:

(1)Defendan-defendan dilarang daripada menggunakan apa-apa fasiliti pinjaman yang diambil oleh mana-mana defendan-defendan yang digerentikan oleh plaintif sehingga lupusnya tindakan ini, termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada fasiliti ‘overdraft’ yang diambil oleh defendan ke-3 dengan Affin Bank Berhad.

(2)Defendan-defendan diarahkan untuk memastikan bahawa kesemua fasiliti pinjaman yang diambil oleh mana-mana defendan yang digerentikan oleh plaintif diselenggarakan dengan teratur sehingga tindakan ini dilupuskan.

(3)Defendan-defendan dalam masa 7 hari memfailkan satu afidavit yang memberikan butiran mengenai status terkini (termasuk wang yang terhutang) berkenaan fasiliti-fasiliti pinjaman yang diambil oleh defendan-defendan daripada Affin Bank Berhad, Maybank, EON Bank dan Ambank.

(4)Kos permohonan ini dijadikan dalam kausa.

(5)Apa-apa perintah atau relif lain yang mahkamah yang mulia ini anggapkan adil.

[2]The plaintiff was employed by all the four defendants in a group of companies as their managing director and in the course of his employment had signed eight guarantees to secure hire purchase loans given by financial institutions to the first, second and third defendants in respect of the hire purchase of seven cars and machineries. The plaintiff is also a guarantor of an overdraft loan granted by Affin Bank to the third defendant.

[3]The plaintiff ceased to be the managing director of all the defendants (Vintage Group) and ceased to be a director on the board of the four defendants effective 31 October 2007.

[4]The plaintiff then presented winding up petitions against the first defendant and also against the second defendant for debts due to the plaintiff. Subsequently the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby under cl 4.2 of the agreement:

Vintage Group undertakes to discharge Ong’s guarantees within sixty (60) working days of the date of this agreement.

[5]The person Ong referred to in cl 4.2 of the agreement is Ong Thuan Ming the plaintiff.

[6]Subsequently following a dispute on the performance of cl 4.2 the plaintiff filed the present originating summons for specific performance of cl 4.2.

Mr David Soosay for the plaintiff

(1)The plaintiff was the managing director of all the defendants until October 2007. The plaintiff left all the companies on 31 October 2007 leaving the guarantees which he stood in favour of the defendants outstanding.

(2)On 24 April 2008 following negotiations the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement which provides as follows:

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made the 24 April 2008

Between

Ong Thuan Ming (‘Ong’) (NRIC No. 750611–14–5683) of Block G 04–03, Seri Kasturi Apartment, Jalan BK 3/7, Bandar Kinrara, 58200 Kuala Lumpur

And

The ‘Vintage Group’, which consists of:

Of Wisma Vintage, No 10, Jalan 2/109E, Desa Business Park, 58100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written.

SIGNED by Ong Thuan Ming in the presence of:-)

Sgd.

SIGNED by VTI Vintage Berhad in the presence of:-)

Sgd.

Director

Sgd.

MURALEE MENON

ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR

KUALA LUMPUR.

SIGNED by Vintage Tiles Industries Sdn Bhd in the presence of:-)

Sgd.

Director

Sgd.

MURALEE MENON

ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR

KUALA LUMPUR.

SIGNED by Vintage Roofing & Construction Sdn Bhd in the presence of:-

Sgd.

Director

Sgd.

MURALEE MENON

ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR

KUALA LUMPUR.

(1)VTI Vintage Berhad;

(2)Vintage Tiles Industries Sdn Bhd;

(3)Vintage Roofing & Construction Sdn Bhd; and/or

(4)Vintage Tiles Holdings Sdn Bhd

1.This agreement is for the settlement of the ongoing dispute between the parties, specifically:[2009] 3 MLJ 850 at 855

1.1Kuala Lumpur High Court, Winding-Up Petition No: D8–28–137–2008

1.2Kuala Lumpur High Court, Winding-Up Petition No: D8–28–211–2008

2.Vintage Group will immediately issue and deliver cheques for the following amounts (dates and drawers also stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top