JUDGMENT

Eddie Yeo Soon Chye JC:

(Encl 32: 2nd Defendant's Application To Set Aside Ad Interim Injunction)

Background

[1] This is the 2nd defendant's application filed together with the Affidavit in Support affirmed by Hannah Kam Zhen Yi (Encl 33) on 31 January 2022 for the following prayers:

a) that the Ad Interim Order dated 27 December 2021 insofar as it concerns the 2nd defendant be set aside;

b) that an investigation and assessment of damages against the plaintiff be held and to be paid to the 2nd defendant forthwith;

c) cost to be borne by the plaintiff and to be assessed and paid forthwith; and

d) further and other orders or reliefs as the court deems fit and proper.

[2] The cause papers filed are as follows:

a) 2nd defendant's Written Submissions, Submissions in Reply and Bundle of Authorities (Encls 71, 72, 75 and 76); and

b) Plaintiff's Written Submissions, Submissions in Reply and Bundle of Authorities (Encls 69, 70, 73 and 74).

court Orders

[3] On 27 December 2021 (Encl 66), upon hearing inter-partes, the court granted an Ad Interim Order and thereby ordered and directed that the defendants and each of them by themselves or agents or servants or otherwise be restrained, an injunction is hereby granted restraining them and each of them from taking any further steps in the proceeding commenced by the 1st defendant under the Mental Health Act 2001 (MHA) against the plaintiff save and except upon the plaintiff's counsel undertaking that the 1st defendant shall be at liberty to take all steps (including making ancillary applications) to oppose the striking out application filed by the plaintiff herein in OS No WA-24NCvC-2619-12/2021 until the disposal of this application (Encl 4: plaintiff's Application for Injunctive relief) on 18 March 2022. The written grounds of judgment dated 6 March 2022 (Encl 60) is incorporated in the plaintiff's Bundle of Authorities (Encl 70 Tab. 3).

Submissions By The 2nd Defendant

[4] The brief grounds of submissions are outlined herein:

(a) Plaintiff does not meet the test for an Ad Interim Injunction;

(b) No status quo to preserve as against the 2nd defendant;

(c) Prayer 1 of Encl 4 was to seek a quia timet injunction to prevent a suit from being filed where the plaintiff was suspicious that the 2nd defendant would file an MHA action against him;

(d) No serious questions to be tried between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant (see the Federal court case of Petrodar Operating Co Ltd v. Nam Fatt Corporation Berhad & Anor & Another Appeal; [2014] 6 MLJ 189; [2014] 1 CLJ 18; [2014] 1 AMR 401);

(e) The plaintiff did not adduce evidence to show that he will suffer irreparable damage should the injunction not be granted against the 2nd defendant;

(f) plaintiff's lack of bona fide, see court of Appeal case in Leasing Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Indah Lestari Sdn Bhd; [2007] 7 MLJ 506; [2007] 6 CLJ 548; and

(g) Injunction sought is prohibited by s 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137).

Submissions By The Plaintiff

[5] The filing of the appeal was not disclosed in her affidavit in support of Encl 32 hence the 2nd defendant's application is an abuse of the process of court as the 2nd Defendant is seeking exactly the same relief. Therefore the 2nd defendant has violated the rule against multiplicity of proceedings.

[6] The court of Appeal in the case of The Royal Selangor Golf Club v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur; [2012] 5 MLJ 364 at p 370; [2012] 3 CLJ 293 decided as follows:

"[12] In the ordinary case, if a court erred, the proper course is an appeal. Since a notice of appeal to the court of Appeal had been filed earlier, the application in Encl 9 is in duplicity of the appeal process. Until an appeal is withdrawn, dismissed or otherwise disposed of by the court to which it is filed, it remains in existence as an appeal. No evidence was put before the court that the appeal was withdrawn. The alternative of making an application to clarify the order appealed from having been forgone, remained foregone. T