SUNTHARARUBAN A/L SELVANAYAGAM v 1. ) CLIFFORD DASS 2. ) ALICIA JOANNE DASS 3. ) VALRIE JOANNE DASS

Case Significance

Illustrates how a court preserves the status quo through balanced interlocutory injunctions where a power of attorney over property is alleged to be a sham, restraining the attorneys from using it while also restraining the registered proprietor from disposing of the property pending trial.

This High Court decision concerns an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from using a power of attorney over the plaintiff's property pending the trial of the plaintiff's civil suit. The plaintiff, the registered proprietor of a property in Kuala Lumpur, had signed a power of attorney appointing the defendants as his attorneys to deal with the property, and then sued for an injunction restraining them from using it and for a declaration that the power of attorney was invalid, alleging that the underlying arrangement was a sham. A side issue arose when it emerged that the plaintiff may not have been in Malaysia on the dates he purportedly affirmed his affidavits before a commissioner for oaths; the court expunged those affidavits, ordered an administrative report on the commissioner, and allowed the plaintiff to refile properly affirmed affidavits, in each case with costs against the plaintiff. On the merits of the injunction, the court held that the competing allegations — including whether the power of attorney and the underlying arrangement were genuine or a sham — raised issues that could only be resolved by oral evidence at trial, and that an injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo pending disposal of the suit. Balancing convenience, and to protect the defendants as well, the court fashioned mutual relief: it restrained the defendants from using the power of attorney, but also, under the omnibus prayer, restrained the plaintiff from using his position as registered proprietor to dispose of the property (noting he could obtain a duplicate title), and allowed the defendants to continue occupying the property so that they suffered no detriment. The court ordered costs in the cause. The judgment illustrates how the court preserves the status quo by balanced injunctions where a power of attorney is alleged to be a sham.