Injunction
an order directing building to be
1.0 Definition
2.0 Types of injunction
1.0 Definition
Hanbury and Mandsley:
-An injunction is an order by court to
a party to the effect that he shall do
or refrain from doing a particular act
Niino & Co. Ltd. V. Kow Lup
Kai
-It is either (1) interlocutory or
interim, ie an order until the hearing
of the action or further order; or (2)
perpetual, ie a judgment determining
and concluding the right in litigation;
it is also (a) restraining, ie when it
inhibits the doing of anything; or (b)
mandatory, ie when it commands the
doing, or restoring, of anything.
2.0 Types of Injunction
A. Prohibitory and Mandatory
Prohibitory:
-s. 51, 52
-most common form of injunction
-direted by the court to restrain/
prohibit the comission or continuance
of a wrongful act
-the injunction must be based on the
infringe of a legal or equitable right,
the court will not order an injunction
when no legal or equitable right is
affected.
-e.g. restrain the breach of contract,
restrain from permitted certain
building to remain on certain land.
Mandatory:
-s. 53
-directed by the court to order some
acts to be done and the order of the
court should define precisely what
the defendant is required to do.
2 classification
-It can be restorative in nature. It
aimed at requiring a defendant to
undo a wrongful act.
-e.g.
pulled down. (P.I prevent that the
building to be built again)
-it maybe given to compel the
carrying out of certain positive
obligations by the defendant.
-e.g. an injunction require the
defendant to continue supplying
petrol. (Ref: Sky Petroleum Ltd v V.I.P
Petroleum Ltd)
-similat with SP in this sense,
however SP is a remedy for breach of
contract injunction not necessarily
involves a contract.
B. Perpetual and Interlocutory
Injunction
-perpetual means that the order will
finally settle the present dispute
between the party, being made as
the result of a trial, the court having
heard in the ordinary way the
arguments of both sides.
-but a plaintiff may not always be
able to wait for the action to come on
in the noral course, it may be that
irrepairable damage will done if the
defendant is not immediately
restrained.
-plaintiffs counsel will apply to the
court for an injunction and the judge
will grant an interlocutory injunction
which is effective untl the trial of the
action.
-the usual purpose of such an
injunction is to maintain the status
quo between the parties pending the
trial.
-May be granted ex parte
(synonym:inter parte)
-Non permanent in nature /
temporary
-Interlocutory granted not necessarily
mean perpetual will be granted.
C. Ex Parte Injunction
-Ex parte signifies that the court
had no opportunity to hear the other
side;
-it will be granted granted to a P who
needs a remedy urgently or if the
other party knows of the application
will do injustice to the P
-it is an interlocutory injunction.
-e.g.:
-Mareva Injunction : P applies to
court for an order to freeze the
assets of the D for fear that the D will
remove his assets and leave the P
with no remedy;
-Anton Piller Order : an order by the
court directing the D to allow the P to
enter the Ds premise so as to
inspect and make copies of relevant
documents and other appropriate
material.
D. Intertim injunction
-Temporary in nature (similar to
interlocutory);
-To restrain NOT until the trial over
(like interlocutory injunction) but
until some specified date
-usually but not always ex parte.
-E.g.:
-If notice of hearing of an
interlocutory injunction has been
served on the defendant but he is
not given sufficient time to prepare
his case, then an interim injunction
until the next motion day is more
likely to be granted than a full
interlocutory injunction.
E. Quia Timet Injunction
-Issued to prevent an infringement of
the Ps rights where the infringement
is threatened, but has not yet
occurred
-the injunction can be interim,
interlocutory or perpetual and
prohibotory or mandatory.
Two broad categories
-the first is where plaintiff has not yet
been injured by the defendant, but
the defendant threatens and intends
to act in a way that will cause
impairable damage to plaintiff or
plaintiffs property
-in the second category the plaintiff
having been fully compensated for
one damage caused by defendant,
alleges that the earlier actions of the
defendant may give rise to a future
cause of action.
General principles
1. A strong probability of grave
damage will occur in future; and
2. Damages is not an adequate
remedy.
3. the cost of defendant to do works
to prevent or lessen the likelihood of
the future apprehended wrong must
be taken into account.
3.0 Pepertual Injunction
-perpetual can be prohibitory or
mandatory in nature.
-S.51, s.52 SRA
General Priciple
i. Discretionary remedy
-the injunction is discretionary
remedy, based on the inadequacy of
common law remedy
-exercised in accordance with
established prinicples.
ii. Damage as inadequate
remedy
-when they are not quantifiable.
-The damages suffered by the P
cannot be quantified in terms of
monetary compensation or
if money couldnt properly
compensate plaintiff.
-E.g. nuisance cases or other
continuous injuries requiring a series
of actions for damage.
-Where damages as a remedy would
be ineffective
-for eg. In cases where the D is
extremely poor (Ref: Hodgson v
Duce)
4.0 Interlocutory injunction
-interlocutory injunction is the most
convenient menthod of preserving
the status quo while rights are
established.
-object of interlocutory injunction is
to prevent a litigant who must
necessarily suffer the laws delay
from losing by that delay the fruit of
his litigation (per Lord Wilberforce
im Hoffman-La Roche (F) & Co. v.
Secretary of States For Trade &
Industry)
-I.I maybe prohibitory, mandatory,
quia timet.
-normally such an injunction remains
in force until the trial but an interim
injunction maybe granted which
endures for some shorter specified
period.
-failure to seek an interlocutory
injunction will not necessaily
preclude the plaintiff from obtaining
a perpetual injunction and vice versa.
The law prior to American
Cyanamid
The often cited tests here were:
-A strong prima facie case that the
applicants rights had been infringed;
-Damages would not be an adequate
remedy if he suceeded the trial,
-Balance of convenience favoured the
applicant;
**It was more likely that he would
succeed in securing a final injunction
at the trial.
The Law Expounded In American
Cyanamid
American Cyanamid Co v
Ethicon Ltd
o The Defendant intended to
launch in the British market
surgical suture and the plaintiff
claimed an infringement of its
patent and sought an
 interlocutory quia timet
injunction to stop it.
Held:
1. there was no rule requiring the
plaintiff to establish a prima facie
case
2. plaintiffs case is not frivolous
or vexatious and there is a
serious qn to be tried.
3. the balance of convenient should
be taken into consideration.
4. Other special factor
Plaintiffs case is not frivolous or
vexatious and there is a serious
qn to be tried.
-Ps intentions is genuine NOT an
attempt to harass D;
-P have to show that there serious
question to be tried which mean that
he should have good arguable case.
-Once this is established, next
consideration: BOC
Morning Star Co-operative
Society v Express Newspapers
Publishers of the P sought an
injunction to prevent the D from
launching a new tabloid, which
was to be called the Daily Star.
Held: The P failed to show a
serious issue to be tried and the
ct ruled against the P.
The judge commented that only
a moron in a hurry would be
misled into thinking that Daily
Star was Morning Star.
Kuantan Kuala Lumpur
Express Omnibus Co Ltd v
Utama Express Sdn Bhd
The P had a public service
licence to provide express bus
service between Kuantan and
KL.
It alleged that the D was
illegally providing bus service
between Kuantan and KL
without a public service
licence and was infringing the
Ps right.
The plaintiff claimed an
injunction to restrain the
defendant from providing bus
service between Kuantan and
KL and for damages.
Held: There are serious issues
to be tried and the P has the
locus standi.
On the evidence the balance
of convenience is in favour of
the grant of interlocutory
injunction.
The interlocutory injunction is
therefore granted on the
undertaking as to damages by
the P.
Balance of convenience
-whether it is just, in all
circumstances, that the P should be
confined to a remedy in damages
-inadequacy of damage is a sigificant
factor in assessing the balance of
convenient.
-the question of balance of
convenience ought to be considered
in the following sequences:
o If the applicant could be
adequately compensated for any
loss caused by defendant and
adequate remedy in damages at
 law is available, then the
application for an interlocutory
injunction should be rejected;
o If P failed the trial, any loss
caused to the D by the grant of
injunction could be adequately
compensated by the P?
o If both answers are affirmative,
then interlocutory injunction may
be granted;
o If there is doubt as to the
sufficiency of the respective
remedies in damages available
to either party or to both, then
the the question of the balance
of convenience becomes
relevant.
o Balance of convenience doesnt
clearly favour either party, the
preservation of status quo will
come into play.
Relative strength of each partys
case is a factor to be considered as a
last resort and the injunction will be
granted when the strength of one
partys case is disprpotionate to that
of the other. (Ref: Pekeliling
Triangle Sdn Bhd v Chase
Perdana Bhd)
Express Newspaper Ltd v Keys
o An interlocutory injunction was
granted to restrain a trade
union from unlawfully
persuading Ps employee to
support te Day if Action
which is a political strike and
thus inducing Ps employee to
breach the contract of
employment.
o It was clear that the defendant
was acting unlawfully
o If the injunction was refused,
the P would suffer
unquantifiable damage
whereas if it was granted, the
union would suffer no harm
save political embarassment.
o It was in the interest of the
members and of the public
that the injunction be granted.
o The BOC is in favor of P.
Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd v
Chase Perdana Bhd
o The P was employed to
construct a commercial and
apartment complex in KL.
o After the issuance of notices
by D specifying the major
shortcomings, the P proceeded
to remedy the same.
o The D were not satisfied with
the remedial works done by
the P and refused to issue the
Certificate of Practical
Completion.
o As such, the P could not claim
payment under the bank
guarantee.
o The P filed for an injunction to
restrain the D from entering
the project site without the
plaintiff's written consent and
the HC allowed the application.
The D appealed.
o Held,
o In the instant case, the learned
High Court judge did not follow
these steps at all but
considered them all together,
which was wrong.
o Since the first step had not
been crossed, there was no
need to consider other matters
relating to the balance of
convenience and the measures
calculated to preserve status
quo as elaborated by the
judge.
 o The court satisfied that if the
plaintiff succeeds at the trial it
will be adequately
compensated by an award of
damages for the loss that will
be sufferred by P as a result of
the defendants' continuing
refusal of issuance of CPC.
o Hence, the application for the
injunctions should have been
refused, no matter how strong
the plaintiff's claim appeared
to be at that stage.
Yeop Mah Ee v. Kuan Kum
Chiew & Anor
o The respondent was occupying
the ground floor front portion
of certain premises of which
the applicant was the
registered proprietor.
o The applicant and HLF (Hong
Leong Finance) forcibly tried to
demolish the back portion of
the premises which the
respondent was also using.
o The respondent therefore
sought an ex parte
interlocutory injunction to
prevent the demolition by the
applicant.
o The injunction was granted by
the court.
o The applicant thereafter made
the present application to
discharge the injunction
granted to the respondent.
o Held, appeal was dismissed.
o there was serious question to
be tried
the respondent/ plaintiff
was at that very moment
in danger of being forcibly
ejected from his home, to
wit, the premises, by the
agents or servants of HLF.
o Damages would not be an
adequate remedy
he was tricked into
signing the agreement
where there is no
provision for the payment
of the compensation.
Even though there is
compensation,the remedy
is till inadequate.
Because, sub-tenant
could, have gone back on
his word and insisted
upon the statutory
protection given him
under the Rent Act 1966
in which the ejector must
allow him access and
occupation to the
premise.
o the balance of convenience
favours the respondent rather
than the applicant.
to discharge the
injunction might have the
effect of depriving the
sub-tenant of the
peaceful possession and
enjoyment of his home,
which is subject to the
Act, then this is likely to
be more serious than the
prejudice which would be
caused to the owners HLF
by reason of the
continuance of the
injunction.
It is my opinion,
therefore, that the
balance of convenience
clearly favours the sub-
tenant rather than HLF.
Other Special Factor
-Lord Diplock in AC concluded that
other special factors may have to
be considered in individual cases.
-a question which arise is whether
these special factors are merely n
aspect of the balace of
inconvenience, or whether they
justify a departre from the principles
laid down in AC and a return to the
previous practice of requiring a prima
facie case.
Fellowes & Sons v Fisher
The P sought to enforce a
covenant in restrict of trade
whereby the D was not to do
any legal work within a certain
radius.
Held: The covenants in
restraint of trade were a
special category. There may be
many other special factors to
be taken into consideration in
the particular circumstances of
individual cases.
The court has to make an
estimate of the relative
strength of each partys case.
If the plaintiff makes out a
prima facie case, the court
may grant an injunction.
If it is a weak case, or is met
by a strong defence, the court
may refuse an injunction.
**Lord Dennig refusing the injuction
based on different grounds and did
not feel bounded by AC.
Examples of Special Factors:
whether P has locus standi
S 54(k): Where the applicant has no
personal interest in the matter
injunction cannot be granted
Government of Malaysia v Lim
Kit Siang
The respondent had applied
for a declaration that the letter
of intent issued by the gov to
UEM in respect of the North
and South Highway contract is
invalid.
He applied by way of ex parte
for an interim injunction
against UEM to restrain it from
signing the contract.
Mareva Injunction
UEM and the gov applied to
have the interim injunction set
aside.
Issues: (iii) whether he has
locus standi, i.e. title to bring
and maintain the action
against the government.
Held:
Refusal to grant the injunction
is also consistent with para (d)
and (k) of s 54 of the Specific
Relief Act so that no injunction
can be granted to "interfere
with the public duties of any
department of government"
nor can it be granted "where
the applicant has no personal
interest in the matter".
Personal interest here must
mean legal interest and not
merely political interest.
in this case, the respondent
could not have locus standi,
whether as a politician, a road
and highway user or a
taxpayer
-Its name come from Mareva
Compania Naviera S.A. v.
International Bulkcarriers S.A.
although the first reported exercie
occurred in Nippon Yusen Kaisha
v. Karageorgis.
-Bank Mellat v. Nikpour:
Donaldson LJ described Mareva &
APO as one of the laws two nuclear
weapons.
-Object : to freeze the Ds assets so
as to ensure that they are not
disposed before the judgment and
there will be property of the D
availabe to satisfy the judgment.
-A Prohibitory and Interlocutory
usually applied ex-parte due to its
urgent nature.
-can be found in s.51 of SRA
The Pre- Mareva Position
An injunction could not be issued to
restrain a debtor from parting with
his property:
Lister & Co. v Stubbs
The P alleged that their
foreman had received secret
commissions which he had
invested in land and other
investments.
They sought interlocutory
relief to prevent him dealing
with the land.
Held: The injunction was
refused because the money
was not that of the plaintiffs so
as to make the defendant a
trustee. The court will not
grant an injunction to restrain
a defendant from parting with
his assets.
Introduction of Mareva
Injunction
Introduce by Lord Denning in:
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v
Karageorgis & Anor
The P co had chartered a ship
to the D.
P claimed for a large sum of
unpaid hire and a strong prima
facie case made out.
The charterers could not be
found but there was evidence
of funds at a bank in London.
Held: The application for an
injunction succeeded in
restraining the charterers from
disposing of / removing from
the jurisdiction of any of the
assets which were within the
jurisdiction.
Mareva Compania Naviera SA
v International Bulkcarriers
SA
The P (the shipowners)
claimed against the D (the
charterers) who were outside
jurisdiction, for unpaid hire and
damages for repudiation of a
charter party.
Meanwhile they believed that
there is a grave danger that
the moneys in the bank in
London will disappear, so they
applied for an injunction to
restrain the disposal of those
money which are now in the
bank.
 Held: The cour will grant an
injunction to protect a person
who has legal / equitable right.
This applies to a creditor who
has a right to be paid the debt
owing to him, even before he
has established his right by
getting judgment for it.
If it appears there is a danger
that the debtor may dispose of
his assets so as to defeat it,
the court has jurisdiction in a
proper case to grant an
interlocutory judgment so as
to prevent him disposing of
those assets.
In this case, the charterers
have control of the money in
the bank in London and they
may at any time dispose of it
or remove it out of this
country.
An injunction ought to be
granted to restrain the
charterers from disposing of
these moneys until the trial or
judgment.
Guideline for obtaining Mareva
injunction, the applicant must:
a Have cause of action;
b Have good arguable case;
c Make full & frank disclosure of
all material matters;
d Satisfy court that the
defendant has assets;
e Provides grounds for believing
that there is real risk that the
defendant will deal with the
assets;
f Give undertaking as to
damages
Position of Malaysian Law
-Para 6 of the Schedule to the
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Msia)
: Preservation of property
-Additional powers of High Court
includes power to provide for the
interim preservation of property the
subject matter of any cause or
matter by sale or by injunction
-in pari materia with = S45 of the
Supreme Court of Judicature
(Consolidation) Act 1925 (UK)
Creative Furnishing Sdn Bhd v
Wong Koi
o the court had laid down the
four elements that the
plaintiff must essentially fulfil
before Mareva Injunction
could be granted:
i.) The plaintiff must have a
cause of action which the
Court has jurisdiction to hear;
ii.)There must be a good
arguable cause;
iii.)There must be some
grounds for believing that the
defendant has some assets in
his ownership or possession
within the jurisdiction.
iv.)There must be a real
danger that assets will be
removed from or dissipated
within the jurisdiction.
Have good cause of action which
the Court has jurisdiction to hear
Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul
Rahman v Century Hotel Sdn
Bhd [1982] 1 MLJ 260
The respondent had let the
premises to the appellant to
run a recreation centre.
The respondent subsequently
closed the hotel business and
informed the appellant that
there would no longer be hotel
guests requiring the their
services.
The appellant claimed
wrongful repudiation of the
contract and damages. The
appellant sought to restrain
the respondent from selling,
transferring or disposing of the
land and building.
Held:
The appellant has raised a
serious question to be tried on
the damage he has suffered
due to wrongful repudiation of
the lease agreement. (good
cause of action)
But there was no evidence to
show that there was a danger
that the available assets of the
respondent would be
dissipated to prejudice the
appellant's claim.
It would not be proper to make
the order sought by the
appellant.
Good arguable case
Chai Chup Seng Realty Sdn
Bhd V Choo Hua Sang
o The plaintiff need not show
that he has a strong case so as
to warrant the summary
judgment.
o The plaintiff too need not show
that they have a strong prima
facie case.
o The court ruled that if plaintiff
can show that on the available
evidence, there is a fair
chance that they will obtain
judgment against the
defendant then the plaintiff
has a good arguable case.
Duty of disclosure
Bir v. Sharme
o a P who obtained a Mareva
order on the basis of
fabricated evidence will have
to bear the costs of the
application for the injunction
and the subsequent
application for its discharge.
the defendant has some assets
in his ownership or possession
within the jurisdiction.
Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul
Rahman v Century Hotel Sdn
Bhd [1982] 1 MLJ 260
The respondent had let the
premises to the appellant to
run a recreation centre.
The respondent subsequently
closed the hotel business and
informed the appellant that
there would no longer be hotel
guests requiring the their
services.
The appellant claimed
wrongful repudiation of the
contract and damages.
The appellant sought to
restrain the respondent from
 selling, transferring or
disposing of the land and
building. (has assets)
Held:
The appellant has raised a
serious question to be tried on
the damage he has suffered
due to wrongful repudiation of
the lease agreement.
But there was no evidence to
show that there was a danger
that the available assets of the
respondent would be
dissipated to prejudice the
appellant's claim.
It would not be proper to make
the order sought by the
appellant.
a real danger that assets will be
removed from or dissipated
within the jurisdiction.
Best Electronics Sdn Bhd v
Chen Li Yeng [1997] 1 CLJ Supp
572
The P co alleged that the D
had misappropriated co funds
and applied for a Mareva
injunction inter partes and not
ex parte.
The action was filed some 16
months after the P first
Can Mareva Injuction be ordered
discovered the alleged
against the 3rd party?
misconduct.
Held: The fact that the
application is made inter
partes may indicate that there
is no immediate dear of
dissipation of assets.
The P failed to commence
proceedings immediately or
within a reasonable time may
lead to the ct not exercising its
discretion in favour of the P.
There is no real risk of the
assets being dissipated or
removed before judgment.
The application of the P co
must fail.
Give undertaking as to damages
-P must give an undertaking as to
damages, in case he fails in his claim
or the injunction turns out to be
unjustified
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd
o In this case, LED bought an
action against Eagle Homes
Pty Ltd (EH) for breach of
copyright in relation to
building plans.
o EH had paid large dividends to
the shareholders and transfer
its business to another co.
o LED then applied for a Mareva
injunction against the new co
and the shareholders to
prevent them from dealing
with their dividends.
o The shareholders objected on
the ground that they were not
parties to the original dispute,
the dividends received by
them were not property of the
co, and that the Mareva order
should be confined to the cos
assets.
o Held,
o Relying Frigo v Culhaci: The
purpose of a Mareva order is
 to preserve the status quo, not
to change it in favour of the
plaintiff. The function of the
order is not to provide a
plaintiff with security in
advance for a judgement that
he hopes to obtain and that he
fears might not be satisfied;
nor is it to improve the
position of the plaintiff in the
event of the defendants
insolvency.
o The correct proposition is that
a court may only grant a
freezing order against third
parties in circumstances in
which:
That party holds power of
disposition over assets of
potential judgment debtor
(i.e. bank) or
The third party may be
obliged to contribute funds
to help satisfy judgment
debt (for example, a
guarantor).
o According to this formulation,
in this case, freezing orders
can be made against the
Appellants in respect of the
dividends which they received
from Eagle Homes (not the
rest of their assets).
o Additionally, Ultra Modern is
restrained from dealing in
anyway in the business name
"Eagle Homes", but its assets
are not frozen.
Babanaft International Co SA
Can Mareva Injunction be
ordered against asset not in the
jurisdiction?
Derby & Co v Weldon [1989] 1
All ER 1002
The D in this case argued that
it was a precondition that the
D had some assets within the
jurisdiction of the ct for the
granting of a Mareva
injunction.
As the D did not have assets in
England, it submitted that the
court had no jurisdiction to
grant the worldwide injunction.
Held: A pre-judgment Mareva
injunction could be granted in
relation to assets worldwide in
the course of litigation pending
in England, irrespective of
whether the defendant had
assets in England.
The English court has
unlimited jurisdiction in
personam against any person
who is properly made a party
to proceedings.
v Bassatne
The P obtained judgment
against two Lebanese
nationals who lived mainly
outside the United Kingdom.
When the D failed to satisfy
the judgment, the plaintiffs
obtained an injunction which
restrained the D from dealing
with their assets outside the
jurisdiction.
Held: An injunction was
granted over the Ds foreign
assets but it was made clear
that the injunction did not
affect the rights of 3rd party.
It is an order made in
personam and had no effect
on third parties except to the
 extent the order is enforced by
the courts of states in which
the Ds assets are located.
Post judgment injunction. Such
an order would more readily
be made against assers
abroad than in a pre-
judgemenal case.
Conclusion:
1. World-wide Mareva order can
now be ordered but only
against the D himself and not
any 3rd parties;
2. Babanaft Proviso should make
it clear that the Court was not
seeking to exercise an
exorbitant jurisdiction, or the
Derby proviso could now be
adopted.
3. A P must give an undertaking
that he will not seek to enforce
the order in a foreign Ct
without first obtaining leave
from the first Ct (original
country)
4. Judge should take into account
the application of ordinary
principles of international law
before granting world wide
Mareva relief.
Other Limitation
-Max. sum frozen to be specified (Z
Ltd. v. A and Others)
-Ordinary living expenses and other
legitimate expenses to be allowed.
Anton Piller Order
-Mandatory injunction
-Ex parte
-In personam
-The purpose of an Anton Piller order
is to prevent the removal or
destruction of evidence before an
inter partes application.
- It allows the Ps solicitor to enter
the Ds premises for inspecting
documents and chattels which are
vital for the Ps case.
Anton Piller KG v
Manufacturing Process Ltd
The respondent was the
appellants agent receiving
confidential information of the
appellants business.
The respondent had been in
secret communication with
other companies.
The appellant feared that the
details of their new product
might be forwarded to the
competitors.
The appellant commenced ex
parte proceedings seeking an
injunction and court order to
permit entry to the
respondents premises to
search and remove all
confidential information owned
by the appellants.
 Held: The injunction and order
were granted.
The rationale for an ex parte
application be made is
explained: if the D is
forewarned, there is a grave
danger that vital evidence will
be destroyed, and the ends of
justice can be defeated.
If the D do not give permission
to the P for entry and
inspection, they are guilty of
contempt of court.
Conditions for granting an Anton
Piller order, the P must show:
(a) An extremely strong prima
facie case;
(b) Very serious potential or actual
damage to the plaintiff;
(c) Clear evidence that the
defendant is in possession of
incriminating materials; and
(d) That there is a real possibility
that they may, unless
restrained, destroy such
material before making of inter
partes application
Lian Keow Sdn. Bhd v C
Paramjothy & Anor [1982] 1 MLJ
217
The P claimed that they were
beneficial owners of a piece of
land and that the D was
holding the said land in trust
for the benefit of the P.
The plaintiffs applied an ex
parte Anton Piller order to
enter the premises of the D
and to take into custody those
documents which were
essential evidence in the
action.
Held: The Anton Piller order
was granted as the P had
proved a strong prima facie
case that the D held the said
land in trust for the P, there
was a serious danger of the
first defendant destroying the
trust deed and the relevant
files relating to the land.
Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd v
Cahaya Surya Buku dan Alat
Tulis
The P contended that the D
had infringed their copyright in
two books and obtained an
Anton Piller order against the
D.
Held: In a copyright
infringement complaint, prima
facie evidence of ownership in
the copyright is sufficient to
justify asking for and being
given an Anton Piller order.
EMI Records v Kudhail
[1985] FSR 36
The P sought injunctive relief
on an ex parte application
against the D and other
unnamed persons in respect of
alleged infringements of its
copyright and for passing off.
Held: A search order was
granted against a single D as
representative of all
distributors, even though the
identity of many of them was
unknown.
Privilege against self-
incrimination
Rank Film Distributors Ltd v
Video Information Centre
 The P claimed copyright
infringement, and obtained
Anton Pillar orders.
Held: The privilege against
self-incrimination was capable
of being invoked.
The test is as to whether there
is a real and appreciable risk
of criminal proceedings being
taken against the witness.
The D were entitled to assert
the privilege against self-
incrimination and refuse to
supply information and to
disclose documents that may
assist in a criminal prosecution
against them.
**S 132 of Evidence Act 1950: A
witness shall not be excused from
answering any question relevant to
the matter in issue in any suit upon
the ground that the answer would
incriminate him.