1. Application for interlocutory injunction based on disputed exclusive distributorship agreement. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 1232
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
MANIRA MOHD NOR, JC
FATIN FATASYA SUBHAN – Appellant
Versus
NZ FROZEN INDUSTRIES SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JA-22NCvC-63-04/2026]
Petitioner Advocates:Asmawi Ismail ,Respondent Advocate: Khairul Asri Ahmad,Mohd Sofian
An interlocutory injunction will not be granted where the central document is heavily disputed as to authenticity, as granting it would require the court to assume its validity and make findings on matters requiring trial.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Injunction - Principles for grant - Serious question to be tried - Prima facie basis - Balance of convenience - Courts must determine whether applicant has shown a bona fide serious question to be tried and that claim is not frivolous or vexatious - Establishing a serious question to be tried does not automatically entitle applicant to injunctive relief; court must examine quality of plaintiff's case and whether relief is justified - Court hearing interlocutory injunction application is not conducting a mini-trial - Granting injunction where document is central controversy would require court to proceed on assumption that document is genuine and enforceable, necessarily involving substantive findings on heavily disputed questions of fact. (Paras 13, 17, 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant premised upon an alleged commercial arrangement embodied in a document referred to as the "Deal Memo". The plaintiff contended that pursuant to the Deal Memo, she was appointed as the defendant's exclusive sole distributor and had acquired certain contractual and proprietary rights. The defendant disputed the entirety of the claim, denying the existence and validity of the rights asserted, and alleging that the Deal Memo was fraudulent, contained forged signatures, and was never validly executed. The defendant also raised a preliminary objection concerning the continued representation of the plaintiff by her solicitors on grounds of alleged conflict of interest, but the court declined to revisit the merits as the issue was subject to a pending appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had established a serious question to be tried. However, the court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a sufficiently clear or compelling basis to justify the extraordinary relief of an interlocutory injunction, as the Deal Memo constituted the central controversy and its authenticity was heavily disputed. The balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction, as granting it would substantially affect the defendant's ability to deal with its business operations based on rights that remained vigorously disputed, and the plaintiff's alleged losses were capable of being compensated by an award of damages. The court dismissed the application with costs in the cause.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff had established a serious question to be tried, whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a sufficiently strong prima facie basis warranting preservation by way of interlocutory injunction in light of disputed facts surrounding the Deal Memo, and where the balance of convenience and overall justice of the case lay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while a serious question to be tried existed, the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient basis for interlocutory injunctive relief because granting the injunction would require the court to proceed on an assumption that the Deal Memo was genuine and enforceable, which would involve making substantive findings on heavily disputed questions of fact lying at the heart of the action, contrary to the principle that an interlocutory injunction hearing is not a mini-trial. The balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy, and granting the injunction would risk conferring upon the plaintiff a significant portion of the ultimate relief sought before the merits had been adjudicated.
Result: Enclosure 4 dismissed with costs in the cause. No order made on the preliminary objection. All issues relating to the validity, authenticity, enforceability and legal effect of the Deal Memo to be determined at trial. Parties: Plaintiff and defendant (specific identities excluded). Dissenting opinions: None. Alternative viewpoints: None.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claimed exclusive distributorship rights; defendant denied validity and alleged forgery. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed with costs in cause. (Para 5 , 33 , 34 )
4. What is the threshold for establishing a serious question to be tried for an interlocutory injunction?
The applicant must show a bona fide serious question to be tried and that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious; this is a relatively low threshold. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. In an interlocutory injunction application, should the court assume the validity of a heavily disputed document central to the claim?
No, the court should not proceed on an assumption that the document is genuine and enforceable when its authenticity is vigorously disputed; to do so would involve making substantive findings on disputed facts inappropriate at an interlocutory stage. (Para 23 , 24 , 27 )
6. What factors are considered in the balance of convenience for an interlocutory injunction?
The court evaluates which course carries the lower risk of injustice pending trial, considering adequacy of damages, impact on defendant's business, and whether the relief sought overlaps with substantive claim. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
7. Can a court revisit a preliminary objection already decided by another court and pending appeal?
No, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to revisit the merits when the issue is the subject of an extant appeal; the court proceeds to determine the substantive application. (Para 9 , 10 )
JUDGMENT
[Enclosure 4-Interlocutory Injunctive Relief]
Introduction
[1] This is the plaintiff's application in encl 4 for interlocutory injunctive relief against the defendant pending the disposal of the present action.
[2] The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant premised principally upon an alleged commercial arrangement embodied in a document referred to as the "Deal Memo". The plaintiff contends that pursuant to the Deal Memo, she was appointed as the defendant's exclusive sole distributor and had acquired certain contractual and proprietary rights arising therefrom.
[3] The defendant disputes the entirety of the plaintiff's claim. The defendant not only denies the existence and validity of the rights asserted by the plaintiff but also alleges that the Deal Memo relied upon by the plaintiff is fraudulent, contains forged signatures, and was never validly executed by the defendant.
[4] The defendant also raised a preliminary objection concerning the continued representation of the plaintiff by Messrs Norhisham & Co on the ground of an alleged conflict of interest involving the plaintiff's solicitor.
[5] Having considered the affidavits filed by both parties, the submissions advanced, the authorities cited by the parties, and the applicable legal principles, this court dismissed the preliminary objection. However, upon considering the merits of the injunction application, this court found that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Accordingly, encl 4 was dismissed with costs in the cause.
Preliminary Objection
Whether Messrs Norhisham & Co Ought To Be Disqualified From Acting For The Plaintiff
[6] The defendant raised a preliminary objection concerning the continued representation of the plaintiff by Messrs Norhisham & Co.
[7] However, this court notes that the very issue had previously been determined by the High court of Malaya at Penang, where the defendant's application for the disqualification of the plaintiff's solicitors was allowed.
[8] The plaintiff has since appealed against that decision and the appeal remains pending before the court of Appeal.
[9] In the circumstances, this court is of the view that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for this court to revisit the merits of the Penang High court's decision in the present application.
[10] The issue is presently the subject matter of an extant appeal and remains for determination by the court of Appeal. Accordingly, this court declines to determine the merits of the preliminary objection afresh and proceeds to determine encl 4 on its substantive merits.
Issues For Determination
[11] Having disposed of the preliminary objection, the issues arising in encl 4 may be distilled into the following three principal issues:
Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff has established a serious question to be tried.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a sufficiently strong prima facie basis warranting preservation by way of interlocutory injunction in light of the disputed facts surrounding the Deal Memo.
Issue (iii): Where the balance of convenience and overall justice of the case lie.
Analysis And Findings Of The court
Issue (i): Whether The Plaintiff Has Established A Serious Question To Be Tried
[12] The applicable principles are well settled. The plaintiff relied on Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor @ Harun Abdullah & Ors [1994] 1 MLRA 454; [1995] 1 MLJ 193; [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 AMR 373 (CA) whilst the defendant relied upon Golden Plus Holdings Berhad v. Teo Sung Ngiap [2019] MLRHU 1646 and Tinta Press Sdn Bhd v. Bank Islam (M) Bhd [1986] 1 MLRA 391; [1987] 2 MLJ 192; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 396; [1987] 1 CLJ 447.
[13] The modern approach requires the court to first determine whether the applicant has shown that there exists a bona fide serious question to be tried and that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious.
[14] Upon examining the pleadings and affidavits, this court is sati
