Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1571
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
MANIRA MOHD NOR, JC
JUNG CHANYOUNG & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
KEE CYNTHIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JA-22IP-1-01/2026]
In an application for an interlocutory injunction, the court must exercise extreme caution when the relief sought effectively mirrors the substantive outcome of the main action. If the order would fundamentally alter the status quo or operational control of a business before a full trial, it should be refused.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 1A, Order 2 rules 1 and 3 - Specific Relief Act 1950 - Sections 50, 51 and 53 - Interlocutory Injunction - Principles for grant - Serious question to be tried - Balance of convenience - Preservation of status quo - When substantive relief overlaps with interlocutory relief, necessity for caution - Court's duty to prioritize substance over procedural technicality. (Paras 1, 26, 31, 41, 64)
(B) Interlocutory Injunction - Overlap with final relief - Where injunction would effectively grant substantive final relief prior to trial and alter operational dynamics of business, such orders should be refused unless circumstances are exceptional. (Paras 21, 38, 40, 48)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought an ex-parte interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the business operations, management, assets, and financial accounts of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). The parties were embroiled in a dispute regarding management control, financial contributions, and business rights. The defendants raised preliminary procedural objections regarding the plaintiffs' cause papers and argued that the application was substantively defective as it sought to resolve a contested commercial dispute on affidavit evidence alone.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the defendants' preliminary objections, finding that procedural irregularities did not cause prejudice, and that the court must favor substantive justice over technical non-compliance. On the merits, the court found the dispute involved heavily contested factual allegations regarding partnership interests and management control, which were unsuitable for resolution on affidavit evidence. Furthermore, the court determined that the requested injunctions would grant the plaintiffs essentially final relief, thus altering the status quo rather than preserving it.
Issues: The main issues were whether the procedural defects in the cause papers were fatal to the application, whether the plaintiffs satisfied the criteria for an interlocutory injunction, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the order.
Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory injunction is essentially preservative. Where the requested relief overlaps with findings required in the main suit and would effectively determine substantive rights or shift management control without the benefit of a full trial, the court must exercise profound caution. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, an injunction that mandates the restructuring of ongoing business operations pending trial will be denied as it fails the balance of convenience test.
Result: Plaintiffs' application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs in the cause.
JUDGMENT
[Enclosure 3-Plaintiffs' Application For Ex Parte Injunction Against The Defendants]
Introduction
[1] This Court heard the plaintiffs' Notice of Application dated 23 January 2026 ("Enclosure 3") wherein the plaintiffs sought various injunctive reliefs against the defendants pursuant to O 29 rr 1 and 2 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012"), ss 50, 51 and 53 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 ("SRA 1950"), and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court .
[2] The Plaintiffs principally sought orders to restrain the defendants from interfering with the business operations, management, assets, customers, social media platforms, bank accounts and affairs of Saranghair Korea Concept PLT ("the PLT") pending the disposal of the main suit.
[3] The Defendants opposed the application and raised several preliminary objections against the validity and propriety of the plaintiffs' supporting affidavits and cause papers.
[4] Having considered the affidavits filed by the parties, the written and reply submissions, the bundles of authorities referred to by the parties, and the applicable principles of law, this Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application with costs in the cause. These are the grounds of this Court .
Background
[5] The dispute before this Court arises from a deteriorating business relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants in relation to the operation and management of Saranghair Korea Concept PLT.
[6] From the affidavit in support affirmed by the 2nd Plaintiff, Son Jayoung, the plaintiffs contended that sometime around January 2024, the defendants proposed for the plaintiffs to join the PLT as business partners.
[7] The Plaintiffs alleged that they subsequently began contributing to the business operations and management of the PLT and invested substantial monies, effort and resources into the business.
[8] The Plaintiffs further alleged that disputes later arose concerning management control, partnership interests, access to business premises, operation of the bank accounts, use of intellectual property, and the administration of the business.
[9] The Plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had acted unilaterally and oppressively in excluding the plaintiffs from the business operations and from access to the affairs of the PLT.
[10] On the other hand, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs' allegations were seriously disputed on the facts and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any clear legal or equitable right warranting interlocutory injunctive relief.
[11] The Defendants further contended that the present dispute was fundamentally a contested partnership and commercial dispute involving highly disputed factual matters which ought properly to be ventilated at the full trial.
[12] The Defendants also maintained that the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs would effectively amount to granting substantive final relief at the interlocutory stage.
Parties' Submissions Plaintiffs' Submissions
[13] The Plaintiffs submitted that there existed a serious question to be tried within the meaning of the principles laid down in American Cyanamid Co v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504.
[14] The Plaintiffs argued that they had established their participation and interest in the business operations of the PLT and that the conduct of the defendants had wrongfully interfered with the plaintiffs' rights and interests.
[15] The Plaintiffs further contended that damages would not constitute an adequate remedy because the dispute involved ongoing business operations, goodwill, customers, confidential information and commercial reputation.
[16] The Plaintiffs also submitted in reply that technical objections raised by the defendants ought not to defeat substantive justice and relied on O 2 r 3 ROC 2012 as well as authorities concerning procedural non-compliance.
Defendants' Submissions
[17] The Defendants raised preliminary objections concerning alleged defects in the plaintiffs' affidavits and cause papers,
