BAGUS HOLIDAYS SDN BHD v 1. ) CITYVILLA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) THAM GIAP CHAI 3. ) THAM CHENG LOCK 4. ) THAM YE-JIN 5. ) LOK KUI LEN

Case Significance

A clear application of the American Cyanamid and mandatory-injunction thresholds in a strata dispute: interim and mandatory relief will be refused where the facts are disputed, no urgent danger is shown, and the application is in substance final relief used to pressure an opponent in a commercial dispute.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an application for interim relief — including a mandatory injunction — in a dispute over blocked fire-engine access in a long-abandoned strata development, and refuses that relief. The plaintiff, Bagus Holidays Sdn Bhd, owned 77 commercial units in the abandoned "Sun City" project in Johor Bahru; the first defendant, Cityvilla Construction Sdn Bhd, was the developer, and the remaining defendants were its directors. The project had been abandoned for some 17 years, with no Joint Management Body established since 2016 despite the requirement in section 17(1)(a) of the Strata Management Act 2013, and no strata titles issued. By its application, the plaintiff sought interim declarations that the defendants had breached statutory provisions of the Fire Services Act 1988 (Akta Perkhidmatan Bomba 1988), by-law 140 of the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 and the Strata Management Act 2013, together with prohibitory and mandatory orders requiring the defendants to remove hoardings, hoists, cranes and other obstructions from the fire access ("Akses Bomba") within three days and to restore the status quo, and it also sought a Registrar's caveat over the master title. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the American Cyanamid requirements for an interim injunction, and that a mandatory interim injunction demanded a still higher threshold, obtainable only in clear and exceptional cases (citing Roxy Electric Industries v Syarikat Nominee Bumiputra), which was not met. It found the caveat relief premature and procedurally defective, since the plaintiff had not first applied to the Registrar and had sought a caveat over the entire master land while owning only 77 units. Holding that the application was in substance final relief involving disputed facts that required a full trial, that it disclosed no real and present danger requiring urgent intervention, and that it was an attempt to use the court to pressure the defendants in a commercial dispute, the court dismissed the application with costs in the cause, without prejudice to the parties proving their case at trial.