Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1557
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
NOOR HISHAM ISMAIL, J
MOHD AZIZUL MOHD NASIR & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SHAKIB ABU BAKAR BANAFEE – Respondent
[Writ No: JA-22NCC-37-05/2023]
A quia timet injunction can be granted to restrain imminent and irreparable harm, such as a multiplicity of vexatious litigation, but courts will not restrict an individual's right to lodge complaints with regulatory authorities due to public policy concerns regarding the investigation of potential wrongs.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act 1950 - Sections 50 and 51 - Quia timet injunction - Requirements for grant - To obtain a quia timet injunction, an applicant must prove imminent danger of an apprehended wrong, and that such damage would be substantial or irreparable if the relief is denied. (Paras 17, 19, 25)
(B) Injunctions - Restraining legal proceedings - Multiplicity of actions - Litigation that would stultify the court's function in ensuring finality of proceedings may be restrained. (Paras 33, 34)
(C) Freedom to complain to authorities - Public policy - Courts are generally reluctant to restrain an individual from lodging complaints or reports with regulatory or enforcement authorities, as such bodies are empowered to investigate potential wrongdoings. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, claiming to be the rightful owners of shares currently held by the defendant, filed an action for a declaration of ownership. The defendant had previously initiated multiple legal actions against the company and the plaintiffs, and lodged numerous complaints with regulatory authorities. The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from exercising shareholder rights, filing further lawsuits, and making public statements or reports to authorities pending the trial.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding share ownership. It found the risk of potential harm through a multiplicity of legal proceedings to be imminent and substantial, warranting an injunction against further lawsuits and exercise of shareholder capacities. However, it declined to restrain the defendant from reporting matters to the authorities due to public policy grounds allowing for legitimate regulatory investigation.
Issues: Whether the court should grant a quia timet injunction to restrain a defendant from filing further legal proceedings, exercising shareholder rights, and making public statements and reports to authorities during the pendency of a main action concerning share ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: A quia timet injunction is a discretionary equitable remedy requiring proof of imminent, substantial, and irreparable harm. The court preserved the status quo by preventing the defendant from initiating further litigation that would protract and undermine the main dispute. However, restraining access to regulatory authorities would violate public policy and the enforcement powers of such agencies.
Result: Application allowed in part; interim injunction granted against filing legal proceedings, exercising shareholder rights, and making public statements, but disallowed regarding reports to authorities.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual disputes regarding share ownership and ongoing litigation between parties. (Para 1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. jurisprudential requirements and criteria for granting a quia timet injunction. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. court's power to preserve status quo and prevent multiplicity of legal proceedings. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. public policy prevents restraining citizens from reporting alleged wrongs to authorities. (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 73)
Introduction
[1] The plaintiffs' main action herein against the defendant is, among others, for a declaration that the 1st Plaintiff is the legal and beneficial owner of 250,000 units of shares currently allotted under the defendant's name in a company known as AWH International Logistics Sdn Bhd ("AWH"). In that regard, it is the plaintiffs' case that the defendant holds the said shares on trust and as nominee for the 1st Plaintiff.
[2] Now, before this court is encl 73 which is the plaintiffs' Notice of Application dated 9 September 2024 seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from exercising and/or taking any action in his capacity as a "shareholder" in AWH and/or filing any further legal proceedings involving AWH; and to restrain the defendant and/or his agents including his family members from making any report or complaint to the authorities or social media relating to the affairs of AWH until the final resolution of the main action.
[3] After having heard submissions from parties, this court allowed encl 73 for the following prayers:
(a) an interim injunction against the defendant from exercising and/or taking any action in his capacity as a "shareholder" in AWH including making any claim for dividend from AWH;
(b) an interim injunction against the defendant from filing any further court action against AWH;
(c) in the event any action has been instituted by the defendant against AWH prior to the interim injunction as ordered this day, the plaintiffs are given liberty to apply to intervene or to apply for stay in the said action; and
(d) an interim injunction against the defendant and/or his agents and/or his family members from making any comment involving AWH either written or oral in any media platform.
[4] The court however disallowed the plaintiffs' application for an interim injunction against the defendant from making future reports or complaints to the authorities pending the disposal of the main action herein.
[5] Hence, this is the court's grounds of judgment for the said decision.
Salient Facts
[6] The plaintiffs are the registered shareholders and directors of AWH.
[7] The defendant at all material times has 250,000 units of shares in AWH registered in his name.
[8] Historically, the defendant was also once among the directors in AWH.
[9] It is common ground that there were grouses between the defendant on one side and the plaintiffs on the other side relating to AWH's affairs. It later developed into a subject of civil litigation when the defendant instituted an action against AWH at the Johor Bahru High court vide Originating Summons No JA-24NCC-14-06/2022 ("Suit 14"). In that suit, the defendant, among others, applied to inspect AWH's financial and other records under s 245 of the Companies Act 2016. Suit 14 however was dismissed by the High court on 30 April 2023 but now pending appeal at the court of Appeal.
[10] The plaintiffs on the other hand later filed the main action herein for the court to determine the legal and beneficial proprietorship of 250,000 units of AWH's shares currently allotted and held under the defendant's name. As mentioned earlier, the plaintiffs' position is that the defendant holds the said shares on trust and as nominee for the 1st Plaintiff.
[11] In addition to the aforesaid actions, the defendant filed two more separate actions against the plaintiffs and AWH which are: (a) a minority oppression suit via Writ
