CHAPTER 1: Preventive Relief

● Classification of injunctions
1. Prohibitory injunction-S52 SRA1950
2. Mandatory injunction-S53 SRA 1950
3. Perpetual injunction
4. Interlocutory injunction
5. Ex parte injunction
6. Quia time injunction

● Special types of injunction

1. Mareva injunction
2. Ad interim injunction
3. Erinford injunction
4. Anton Piller injunction

● An example of an injunction
❖ Interlocutory injunction (Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012)
● It is a temporary/interim injunction
● It usually lasts pending trial
● The status quo is maintained until the end of the trial
● Related cases
➢ Jakob Renner & Ors v. Scott King [2000] 3 CLJ 569 (HC)
● The plaintiff suffered from some physical disability
affecting motor movements
● The plaintiff studied at the defendant's school
● The defendant did not allow the plaintiff to continue his
studies because of his handicap
● The plaintiff made appeals but they were rejected by
the defendant
● The plaintiff applied for interlocutory injunction
(restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff
from continuing his studies)
● The injunction lasts pending trial
➢ Sam Peng Thong &Ors v. Tetap Meriah Sdn Bhd [2002] I CLJ
105 (HC)
● The plaintiffs were the owners of several units in a mall
● They applied for an interlocutory injunction restraining
the defendant from discontinuing services in the said
mall (31/5)
● The injunction lasts until trial (21 days, Order 29 of
ROC 2012) (21/6)
➢ Cheah Cheng Lan v.Heng Yea Lee & Ors. [2001] 1 CLJ 727
●

● Principles in granting an injunction (compulsory)

❖ Are there any serious issues to be tried?
 ❖ Are the damages adequate remedy for the plaintiff?
❖ Does the defendant suffer hardship?
❖ American Cynamid v. Ethicon [1975] AC 396HL
❖ Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v.Mohd.Noor & Ors. [1995] 1 CLJ 293 (COA)

Mareva injunction
❖ To restrain the defendant from removing, disposing, or concealing his assets
from the jurisdiction
❖ Example: Freeze the def’s assets and the operation of the bank account
❖ The Mareva [1980] 1 All ER 213-Lord Denning
➢ The plaintiffs had let the vessel go to the defendants
➢ The plaintiffs were owed some money (hire) from the defendants (the
charterers)
➢ The defendants only paid the two installments to the plaintiff. The third
installment was pending
➢ The defendants decided not to pay the plaintiffs
➢ The plaintiffs proceeded with legal action (writ)
➢ They believed that the defendants may dispose of the money
➢ They applied for an injunction to restrain the defendants
➢ Hence, the name Mareva injunction

● Procedure of application
❖ By way of Notice of Application and Affidavit
❖ May be made ex parte
❖ Has a sense of urgency
❖ Examples:
1. Motor Sport International Ltd v.Delcont M. Sdn Bhd. [1996] 2 MLJ 605
(COA)
-strictly comply with terms
2. Pacific Centre SB v.UEM Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 143 (OCJ Penang)
-The plaintiff shows the risk of disposing of assets
3. Third Chandris Shipping Corp v.Unimarine Sa Eggelikai Ptera
Compania Maritima SA (COA) [1979] QB 645;
a) full and frank disclosure
b) real danger (risk) of the defendant
c)reasonable ground
d) not ambiguous
➔ Onus-prima facie case

4. Psons Ltd dll v. Chin Teck Kuan dll [2015] 10 MLJ 561 (HC)
-same as Chandris
 1) Good arguable case
2) There is clear evidence that the defendant has assets within the
court's jurisdiction.
3) Clear evidence that the defendant will dispose of his assets

● Foreign assets and worldwide injunction

❖ Metrowangsa Asset Management SB v.Ahmad b.Hj Hassan & Ors. [2005] 1
MLJ 654 (HC)
❖ Rosseel NV v.oriental Oriental Commercial Shipping UK Ltd & Ors [1990] 1
WLR 1387

● Grounds for the discharge of Mareva injunction

1. This is not an appropriate case
● An application to discharge the order may be made where the
defendant can show that the plaintiff does not have a good arguable
case on the merits or by showing that there is insufficient risk that the
assets will be dissipated.

2. Defendant providing security

● The defendant may also obtain a discharge of the order by
offering security for the plaintiff’s claim instead.
● E.g., creating a charge over the defendant's property, paying
money into the bank account in the joint names of the solicitors
acting for the plaintiff and defendant, or paying the sum
claimed in court.

3. The plaintiff is guilty of material non-disclosure

● The plaintiff is under a strict duty to make full and frank disclosures in
the affidavit.
● This means- the plaintiff is also under a duty to make reasonable
inquiries. Material facts must appear in the affidavit to support it. It is
not sufficient if they appear in exhibited documents
● Motor Sports Int Ltd v Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd [1996]

Anton Piller Injunction

● It deals with problems regarding intellectual property, copyright, and trademarks

● A type of ex parte application (injunction)
● It allows the plaintiff to enter the defendant’s premises for search and seizure of
evidence that can be used against the defendant in a civil suit
★ Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd & Ors

1. The plaintiff is the manufacturer of high-frequency converters used to

supply computers
2. It was found that the defendant, who was the agent, had planned to
supply a rival manufacturer with information belonging to the plaintiff
to enable their rival to produce the same product
3. Lord Denning allowed ex parte injunction to prevent the plaintiff’s
property from being smuggled away and to prevent evidence from
being destroyed
4. Anton Piller injunction orders the defendant to give permission to the
plaintiff to conduct a search at their premise

● Jurisdiction
❖ It is allowed under section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act, Order 29 of
the Rules of High Court, and section 50 of the Specific Relief Act

● Procedure of application
❖ Ex parte application (by way of summons before a judge in chambers)
❖ By way of notice of application and supported with an affidavit (must set out
the relevant facts)
❖ He must set out the relevant documents or property, showing strong
evidence that serious harm or serious injustice will be suffered if the order is
not made
❖ The applicant must also state the address of the relevant premises where the
incriminating evidence will be found
❖ The applicant must also give an undertaking as to the damages

● Conditions for applying for Anton Piller injunction

❖ According to Ormrod LJ, there are a few conditions;
1. There must be an extremely strong prima facie case
2. The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the
applicant
3. There must be clear evidence that the defendants have in their
possession incriminating documents or things and that there is a real
possibility that they may destroy such material before any application
between the parties can be made