WONG TZY JIAN v 1. ) WONG KEH YEN 2. ) REAL HARVEST PTE LTD 3. ) KEH YEN, NG & PARTNERS

Case Significance

Confirms that a court will vary its own interim injunction, including a freezing order confined to a specific fund, only on a material change of circumstances, undue hardship or another compelling ground, and not merely to accommodate a party's ongoing expenses.

This High Court decision concerns an application to vary the terms of an interim injunction operating as a freezing order over a fund, and the court's power to vary its own interim orders. In the underlying action the plaintiff claims to be the beneficial owner of a single share held by the first defendant, said to be a nominee, in the second defendant, a Singapore company, and alleges that the first defendant had used funds belonging to the second defendant, held by a firm as stakeholder, to pay third parties for estate purposes without authority. The court had earlier granted an interim injunction freezing those funds, amounting to over RM10.3 million, to preserve them pending trial. The second and third defendants applied to vary the order so as to allow a monthly sum for the second defendant's ordinary business expenses, its legal fees and repayments to the first defendant of advances. The court considered the scope of its power to vary its own interim order, and held that such a variation requires a material change of circumstances, or evidence of undue hardship, or some other compelling reason. It found none: there had been no material change of circumstances between the grant of the order and the variation application, the need to make allowances for legal fees and ordinary business expenses had not been raised when the defendants earlier sought clarification of the order, and the second defendant remained at liberty to secure and spend from other sources of funding because the injunction preserved only the specified fund. Concluding that there was no basis to exercise its power to vary the order, the court dismissed the application with costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the principle that a court will vary its own interim injunction only on a material change of circumstances or comparable compelling ground, particularly where a freezing order is confined to a specific fund.