[1] The appellant was the defendant in the High Court below. Their appeal before us was against the decision of the High Court judge at Malacca who issued an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellant from entering the respondent's (the plaintiff in the High Court below) land until further order.

[2] The judgment of the High Court judge has since been reported in the local law journal videTeobros Development Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2007] 9 CLJ 775; [2007] 7 MLJ 67.

[3] Now, as the subject matter of the appeal centred on the interlocutory injunction, we need only apply the guidelines of this court in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor bin Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 MLJ 193 (hereinafter referred to as "Keet Gerald") in order to decide whether the High Court judge had exercised his discretion judiciously.

Legal semantics

[4] It is now trite law that an applicant who seeks an interlocutory injunction must apply to the court without delay. Persons who assert legal rights are bound to come promptly, and, a fortiori, persons who only assert equitable rights (Leonhardt & Coy v. Kalle & Coy [1894] vol. XI R.P.C. (Reports of Patent, Design, And Trade