EDISIJUTA PARKING SDN BHD v 1. ) TH UNIVERSAL BUILDERS SDN BHD 2. ) LEMBAGA TABUNG HAJI
Catchwords
A dispute has arisen over the right to operate a car park in a building. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had renewed their contract to operate the car park for another term. The contract was later broken, said the plaintiff. The defendants disputed this claim, claiming the contract had expired and that the second defendant did not renew it. There were 4 interlocutory applications before the court. Enclosure 3 was the plaintiff's application for an inter partes injunction prohibiting the defendants from executing any contract to operate the car park with third parties until the final disposal of this case. Enclosures 12 and 37 were the first and second defendants' applications to set aside the ex parte order. Enclosure 14 was the first defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim. The court found that there was no serious issue to be tried. The plaintiff had accepted the fact that their contract had expired and accepted the Notice of Expiry issued by the second defendant in good faith and without objection at the time. The court also found that damages would still provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to disclose the above important facts to the court in a full and frank manner. The court also found that the first defendant was not a party to any agreement with the plaintiff. It was the second defendant. As a result of the above, Enclosure 3 was dismissed with costs, while Enclosures 12, 37 and 14 were allowed with costs.
Practice Areas
A dispute has arisen over the right to operate a car park in a building. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had renewed their contract to operate the car park for another term. The contract was later broken, said the plaintiff. The defendants disputed this claim, claiming the contract had expired and that the second defendant did not renew it. There were 4 interlocutory applications before the court. Enclosure 3 was the plaintiff's application for an inter partes injunction prohibiting the defendants from executing any contract to operate the car park with third parties until the final disposal of this case. Enclosures 12 and 37 were the first and second defendants' applications to set aside the ex parte order. Enclosure 14 was the first defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim. The court found that there was no serious issue to be tried. The plaintiff had accepted the fact that their contract had expired and accepted the Notice of Expiry issued by the second defendant in good faith and without objection at the time. The court also found that damages would still provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to disclose the above important facts to the court in a full and frank manner. The court also found that the first defendant was not a party to any agreement with the plaintiff. It was the second defendant. As a result of the above, Enclosure 3 was dismissed with costs, while Enclosures 12, 37 and 14 were allowed with costs.
Case Significance
EDISIJUTA PARKING SDN BHD v 1. ) TH UNIVERSAL BUILDERS SDN BHD 2. ) LEMBAGA T... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 24, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-671-10-2024). The case was decided by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan.
Key issues: As a result of the above, Enclosure 3 was dismissed with costs, while Enclosures 12, 37 and 14 were allowed with costs..
What was the outcome of EDISIJUTA PARKING SDN BHD v 1. ) TH UNIVERSAL BUILDERS SDN BHD 2. ) LEMBAGA T...?
EDISIJUTA PARKING SDN BHD v 1. ) TH UNIVERSAL BUILDERS SDN BHD 2. ) LEMBAGA T... is a High Court decision dated March 24, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan. See the full judgment for details.