TAI MA HEAVY MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) CCP SHEET PILING SDN. BHD. (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) 2. ) CHEONG CHIN PAU 3. ) CHONG CHIN LOON 4. ) EU CHEE CHONG

Case Significance

Applies the adequacy-of-damages principle to refuse an interlocutory injunction for the return of goods, holding that where the claimant has itself quantified the value of the goods and seeks damages, monetary compensation is the proper remedy.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, in the Commercial Division, concerns an application for interlocutory injunctions to compel the return of sheet piles and to restrain their disposal pending trial. The plaintiff, which had supplied sheet piles and related items, sought under Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012 a mandatory injunction to force the defendants to return the sheet piles and all items provided for their installation, an injunction to stop the defendants from disposing of them, and an order requiring disclosure of their whereabouts, the first defendant being a company in liquidation and the other defendants individuals connected with it. At the hearing the plaintiff pressed only the substantive injunctive relief.

The court applied the established principles governing interim injunctions, under which the applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried, or a serious arguable and triable issue, and the court must consider where the balance of convenience lies and whether the status quo should be preserved until the dispute is determined. A cardinal consideration, drawn from authority including Associated Tractors Sdn Bhd v Chan Boon Heng and Inter Heritage (M) Sdn Bhd v Asa Sports Sdn Bhd, is whether damages would be an adequate and proper remedy in lieu of an injunction, because where damages suffice the court will ordinarily withhold injunctive relief.

On the facts, the court noted that the plaintiff had itself valued the sheet piles in its statement of claim at a sum exceeding two million ringgit and had sought damages for their value from the defendants. This demonstrated that the plaintiff's loss was quantifiable and that it could be compensated in money, so that damages would be an adequate remedy and there was no reason to grant the injunction. The court accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's application with costs in the cause. The judgment is a clear application of the adequacy-of-damages principle to refuse an interlocutory injunction where the claimed loss is readily quantifiable.