REDLAND USJ SUMMIT PROPERTIES SDN BHD v MINISO WINKY (M) SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates that an Erinford injunction under section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 will be refused where the applicant cannot establish a subsisting right and the motion is a backdoor attempt to revive a discharged interim injunction.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for an Erinford injunction pending an intended application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. The applicant, Miniso Winky (M) Sdn Bhd, sought an order under section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to restrain the other party, Redland USJ Summit Properties Sdn Bhd, from entering into any negotiation, agreement or dealing with third parties in respect of premises — the ground and first floors of a building — of which the applicant claimed to be the lawful tenant under a "Letter of Offer" dated 4 July 2024, until the disposal of its application for leave to appeal. An Erinford injunction is designed to preserve the subject matter of an appeal so that a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory, but it remains a discretionary remedy governed by the balance of justice. The court found the applicant's reliance on the Letter of Offer misconceived, because no formal tenancy agreement had been concluded, finalised or executed, so the applicant could not establish the tenancy right it asserted. It further held that the motion was in substance a backdoor attempt to relitigate issues already decided and to resuscitate an interim injunction that the Court of Appeal had earlier lifted, which amounted to an abuse of the court's process. Weighing the competing affidavits cumulatively, the court concluded that the balance of convenience lay clearly with the sub-landlord, and that to grant the injunction would be inappropriate, unfair and unjust, inflicting greater hardship by preventing the sub-landlord from lawfully dealing with its property after the injunction had been lifted. It therefore dismissed the relevant prayer of the motion with costs of RM8,000.00, subject to allocatur. The judgment illustrates that an Erinford injunction will be refused where the applicant cannot show a subsisting right and the application is an abuse aimed at reviving a discharged injunction.