XXXX v 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Renganathan Ravindranath Ponniah 3. ) SHARONJIT KAUR A/P SARAWAN SINGH (beramal di Tetuan Iqbal Hakim Sia & Voo)

Case Significance

Confirms that the right to damages on an interlocutory-injunction undertaking is not automatic: an assessment can be ordered only where the trial judge has made an express finding that the injunction ought not to have been granted in the first place.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns the conditions under which damages may be assessed against a party who obtained an interlocutory injunction, once that injunction has ceased to have effect. The question of law arose on the second defendant's application for an inquiry into and assessment of the damages he said had been caused to him by an interlocutory injunction. The precise issue was whether the court is empowered to order an assessment of damages following the setting aside of an interlocutory injunction only where the trial judge has made an express finding that the injunction ought not to have been granted in the first place.

The court examined the principle governing an undertaking as to damages, under which a party who obtains an interlocutory injunction generally gives an undertaking to compensate the enjoined party if it later appears the injunction should not have been granted. The applicant relied on authority to resist the assessment, and the court, mindful of the doctrine of stare decisis, held that it was bound to follow the Court of Appeal's statements of the law on the point. On the authorities, an order for the assessment of damages on such an undertaking depends on there being an express finding by the trial judge that the injunction ought not to have been granted. In this case the trial judge had made no finding about the interlocutory injunction in the grounds of judgment.

The court concluded that, in the absence of any express finding that the injunction ought not to have been granted in the first place, the trial judge was not justified in ordering damages to be assessed, and the application for an inquiry and assessment failed. The judgment illustrates that the right to damages on an injunction undertaking is not automatic: it is triggered only by an express judicial finding that the injunction should not have been granted.