Interim injunction
3 cases · August 2025 to September 2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
trespass to land — Plaintiff registered proprietor — Defendants alleged to have entered and carried out earthworks, excavation, slope cutting and drain construction on Plaintiff’s land without consent — removal and sale of soil — trespass actionable per se — serious issue to be tried established — photographic evidence and Defendant’s affidavit admitting works near boundary — damages inadequate due to permanent alteration and uniqueness of land — balance of convenience favours Plaintiff — undertaking and hoarding fences do not render application academic — risk of recurrence — mandatory injunction refused pending trial — prohibitory injunction granted — costs in the cause. 1 Defamation — Plaintiff has not met the threshold requirements for granting an interim injunction — the articles published were not posted out of thin air or out of bad intention or malice by the Defendants. There was documentary evidence to support the narrative. Whether it was wrongly construed or understood, the basis was there — the application was dismissed. 1 Mareva injunction — fiduciary duty — secret profits — Companies Act 2016 s 221 1
trespass to land — Plaintiff registered proprietor — Defendants alleged to have entered and carried out earthworks, excavation, slope cutting and drain construction on Plaintiff’s land without consent — removal and sale of soil — trespass actionable per se — serious issue to be tried established — photographic evidence and Defendant’s affidavit admitting works near boundary — damages inadequate due to permanent alteration and uniqueness of land — balance of convenience favours Plaintiff — undertaking and hoarding fences do not render application academic — risk of recurrence — mandatory injunction refused pending trial — prohibitory injunction granted — costs in the cause. 1 case
Defamation — Plaintiff has not met the threshold requirements for granting an interim injunction — the articles published were not posted out of thin air or out of bad intention or malice by the Defendants. There was documentary evidence to support the narrative. Whether it was wrongly construed or understood, the basis was there — the application was dismissed. 1 case
Mareva injunction — fiduciary duty — secret profits — Companies Act 2016 s 221 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Cases
ba-22ncvc-250-06-2024
LIM YEW CHYE & SONS REALTY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v 1. ) IRAMA SETIA SDN BHD 2. ) SAN TAT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD
7 September 2025
MYHC
ba-23ncvc-43-07-2025
1. ) BUMI SURIA SDN BHD 2. ) DATUK SERI FARHASH WAFA SALVADOR 3. ) DATUK MOHD AMINUDIN BIN MUSTAPHA v 1. ) MNOW MEDIA SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD ABD AR-RAHMAN KOYA
3 September 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-298-05-2025
1. ) VICTOR WANG 2. ) WANG ZHENG v 1. ) MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MAMING 2. ) SARA NURASHEKEEN BINTI SUHAILI 3. ) STUDIO TWENTY THREE SDN. BHD.
19 August 2025
MYHC