1. ) HYDROSHOPPE SDN BHD 2. ) MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD v 1. ) MENTERI, KEMENTERIAN KOMUNIKASI (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai KEMENTERIAN PENERANGAN, KOMUNIKASI DAN KEBUDAYAAN), YB DATUK AHMAD FAHMI BIN MOHAMED FADZIL 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 3. ) LSH SERVICE MASTER SDN BHD 4. ) LSH BEST BUILDERS SDN BHD 5. ) SERVICE MASTER (M) SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the distinction between ad-interim and interim injunctive relief and the court's reluctance to grant a holding order where the substantive interlocutory application is imminent and the applicant has not shown that immediate relief is just.

This High Court decision concerns an oral application for an ad-interim injunction made in the course of civil proceedings, pending the hearing of a substantive interim injunction application. The plaintiffs, Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd and Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd, brought proceedings against the Minister of the Ministry of Communications and the Government of Malaysia, together with contractor parties, and sought urgent injunctive relief to hold the position pending the determination of their interim injunction application. An ad-interim injunction is a short-term holding order granted to preserve the status quo only until the court can hear the interim injunction application proper, and the applicant must satisfy the court that it is just and convenient to grant it, applying the familiar requirements of a serious question to be tried, the adequacy of damages as a remedy and the balance of convenience. The court considered the oral application against that standard and was not satisfied that the plaintiffs had shown that it was just to grant the relief sought at that stage, particularly given that the substantive interim injunction application was in any event to be heard and disposed of within a short time. Because the substantive application would resolve the question of interlocutory relief almost immediately, there was no pressing necessity that only an ad-interim order could meet. The court accordingly dismissed the oral application for an ad-interim injunction, with costs in the cause, and recorded that the plaintiffs' interim injunction application would in all likelihood be heard and disposed of before any appeal against the dismissal of the ad-interim application was called before the Court of Appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the distinction between an ad-interim and an interim injunction, and of the court's reluctance to grant holding relief where the substantive interlocutory application is imminent and the justice of the case does not require an immediate order.