XORIX SDN. BHD. (Penerima & Pengurus Dilantik) v 1. ) JARDIN PHARMA BERHAD 2. ) DR. MARYAM AL-BATUL BINTI AZIZUDDIN 3. ) YASIR AYEOP BIN AZIZUDDIN 4. ) MUHAMMAD AL-A'THIQ BIN MARZUKI 5. ) MARZUKI BIN H SALIM

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of the interlocutory-injunction principles, serious question, adequacy of damages and balance of convenience, to a contest over a manufacturer's licence and business premises where the underlying entitlement is itself disputed.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for an interim injunction brought by a company in receivership, through its receivers and managers, in a dispute over a manufacturer's licence and product registrations. The plaintiff comprised Xorix Sdn Bhd and the receivers and managers appointed over it, and it sought to restrain the defendants, who included Jardin Pharma Berhad and several individuals connected with the business, from dealing with third parties to cancel, revoke or transfer a manufacturer's licence and the product registration status connected with it, which the plaintiff claimed belonged to Xorix, from carrying out activities on a property said to be used for Xorix's business, and from removing assets from that property. The court applied the established principles governing interlocutory injunctions, namely whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either side, and where the balance of convenience lay, together with the question whether the plaintiff had shown that it, rather than the defendants, held the manufacturer's licence and was the product registration holder. Examining the material, the court was not satisfied that the requirements for an interlocutory injunction had been met, in particular on the questions of a serious issue and the balance of convenience, and it found that damages could be an adequate remedy in the event the plaintiff succeeded at trial. Concluding that the elements required to grant the injunction had not been established, the court dismissed the injunction application, with costs in the cause. The judgment is a useful illustration of the application of the interlocutory-injunction principles to a contest over a manufacturer's licence and business premises where the underlying entitlement is itself disputed. The judgment illustrates that an interlocutory injunction is not to be granted merely because a plaintiff asserts a proprietary or contractual entitlement; where that entitlement is genuinely contested and any loss can be compensated in money, the court will decline to freeze the parties' positions and will leave the competing claims to be resolved at trial.