2026 MarsdenLR 96369

HIGH COURT MALAYA TEMERLOH
KULDEEP KUMAR JAMNA DASS, JC
TAN SRI DATO PHENG YIN HUAH & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
LOK PENG CHUAN & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: CB-22NCC-8-09/2025]

An interlocutory injunction is refused where the alleged harm is purely financial and compensable by damages, the applicant fails to provide a meaningful undertaking as to damages, there is no serious question to be tried, or the applicant has failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 29 Rule 1(2A) - Interlocutory injunction - Ex parte application - Duty of full and frank disclosure - Mandatory requirement to disclose material facts to the Court - Failure to disclose such facts is fatal to an application for injunction. (Paras 41, 87, 89, 95)

(B) Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Principles for grant - American Cyanamid test - Serious question to be tried - Adequacy of damages - Balance of convenience - Injunction should be refused where damages are an adequate remedy and the applicant is not in a financial position to honor the undertaking as to damages. (Paras 42, 43, 44, 47, 59, 74, 75)

(C) Receivers and Managers - Debenture - Power of sale - Absolute discretion - Interference by court - Courts will not restrain the lawful exercise of powers conferred under a debenture unless there is evidence of bad faith or willful default. (Paras 51, 54, 56)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, holding positions as directors, shareholders, and personal guarantors, filed an application for an interim injunction to restrain the receiver and manager of a company from completing the sale of a commercial property. The plaintiffs alleged the property was sold at a gross undervalue and that as guarantors, they would face significant personal financial exposure. The defendants contended the sale was conducted under a valid debenture after multiple failed attempts to sell the asset, and that the plaintiffs' valuation was unfounded. It was also revealed that the plaintiffs failed to disclose in their ex parte application that previous litigation concerning the same subject matter had been decided against them.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish any bona fide serious issue to be tried, given the discretionary powers granted to the receiver under the debenture. Furthermore, the loss complained of was purely financial and therefore compensable by damages. The court also found the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages to be inadequate and noted that the balance of convenience favoured the purchaser who had already paid the consideration and taken possession.

Issues: Whether there is a bona fide serious issue to be tried; whether damages are an adequate remedy; whether the plaintiffs provided a meaningful undertaking as to damages; where the balance of convenience lies; and whether the failure to make full and frank disclosure during an ex parte application warrants dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory injunction is a discretionary remedy that must be refused if damages are an adequate remedy. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the threshold for injunctive relief due to the lack of serious issues, the availability of pecuniary compensation, an unenforceable undertaking as to damages, and a material non-disclosure of prior litigation which is fatal to ex parte applications.

Result: Application for interim injunction dismissed with costs.