H

A
K

M
I
L
I
K

K
E
R
A
J
A
A
N

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
CIVIL PROCEDURE BENCH BOOK
INJUNCTION
2009


22


INTERIM INJUNCTIONS

1. Provision-
O 29 RHC.

2. An interim injunction or an interlocutory injunction
is an order against a legal entity directing them to
do or not to do a specified act or acts until the
determination of the plaintiff's claim at full trial. An
order restraining the defendant from doing
something is commonly referred to as a
prohibitory injunction order whereas an order
compelling the defendant to do a particular act is
referred to as a mandatory injunction order.

3. In granting an interim injunction, the following
matters must be considered:
(a) The plaintiff's claim against the defendant
must disclose a bona fide serious issue to
be tried. At this interlocutory stage, the
court is not required to make a final
determination on the merits of the claim or
the rights of the parties;
(b) The court must then consider where the
justice of the case lies. In determining
where the justice of the case lies, the court
must consider (1) the harm that the
injunction would produce by its grant and
(2) the harm that would result from its
refusal, and come to a conclusion as to
which party would suffer greater injustice.
In determining this, the court must consider
whether damages would constitute an
adequate remedy in respect of the plaintiffs
claim. If damages are adequate, the court
should not grant an injunction order;
H
A
K

M
I
L
I
K

K
E
R
A
J
A
A
N

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
CIVIL PROCEDURE BENCH BOOK
INJUNCTION
2009


23

(c) If the relevant factors are evenly balanced,
the court should maintain the status quo.
[American Cynamid Co v Ethicon [1975] AC
396; Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd
Noor @ Harun Abdullah [1995] 1 MLJ 193; Alor
Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd v Sy
Hoe Sdn Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 241; Garden
Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board
(1984) AC 130]
4. The plaintiff may make the application for an
interim injunction ex parte. The court would
normally only grant an interim injunction ex parte
in cases of urgency. The affidavit in support of an
application ex parte must comply strictly with the
provisions of O 29 r 1 (2A) of the Rules of the
High Court, 1980 [Motor Sports International
Ltd v Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd [1996] 2 MLJ 605]

5. An ex parte interim injunction order shall
automatically lapse at the end of 21 days from the
date on which it is granted. The court when
granting such an injunction ex parte must fix a
date for the hearing inter partes to be held before
the expiry of the 21 day period. (O 29 r 1 (2B)
and (2BA) RHC)

6. At the hearing of the injunction application inter
partes, the court may, if the circumstances so
justify or warrant, grant an ad interim injunction
order until the final determination of the
application inter partes. [RIH Services (M) Sdn
Bhd v Tanjong Tuan Hotel Sdn Bhd [2002] 3
CLJ 83]

7. In most circumstances, the plaintiff is usually
expected to provide an undertaking as to
damages.

8. The court must also consider whether there has
been delay in the making of the application for an
H
A
K

M
I
L
I
K

K
E
R
A
J
A
A
N

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
CIVIL PROCEDURE BENCH BOOK
INJUNCTION
2009


24

interim injunction. In certain instances, delay may
be considered fatal to the exercise of discretion in
favour of granting an interim injunction. [Hj. Wan
Habib Syed Mahmud v Datuk Patinggi Hj.
Abdul Taib Mahmud & Anor [1986] CLJ (rep)
149; Noor Jahan Bt. Abdul Wahab v Md.
Yusoff B. Amanshah & Anor [1994] 2 CLJ 249]

9. Public interest is also a relevant consideration.
[Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Dolomite Industrial
Park Sdn Bhd [2000] 1 CLJ 566].