together in partnership

INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTIONS
By

S. Nantha Balan
5th October 2012
PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK

RULES OF COURT 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012)

CORRIGENDUM (P.U. (A) 226/2012)

AMENDMENT TO RULES OF COURT 2012

(P.U. (A) 232/2012

AMENDMENT (No. 2) TO RULES OF COURT 2012 (P.U. (A)

286/2012)
INJUNCTIONS
 Subordinate Court
(Amendment) Act 2010
Act has been passed but has not come into
force yet.

Act now enables the Sessions Court to deal

with matters in relation to injunctions/
equitable relief.
Types of Injunctions

Prohibitory restrains party from doing a positive act.

Mandatory compels party to do a positive act.
Interim/Interlocutory limited to last until a further order, or
until the final hearing of the case.
Quia Timet granted against a threatened or apprehended
wrong which has not been committed.
Mareva granted in certain cases where it is desired to
restrain the dissipation or disposal of assets.
Erinford a stay order until the appeal is heard.
Perpetual a final injunction where the order is made at the
end of the hearing.
Anton Piller order to enter premises and seize
documents.
 Sources of Legislations

Section 25(2) Courts of Judicature Act

1964 [paragraph 6 of the Schedule to
CJA].

Section 50 to 54 Specific Relief Act 1950

Order 29 Rules of Court 2012

 Right to an Injunction

Right to an Injunction

A right to obtain an interlocutory injunction is not a cause

of actionthe right to obtain an interlocutory injunction is
merely ancillary to the pre-existing cause of action

Dial Singh a/p Tara Singh v Mann Foong Realty Sdn Bhd
[2000] 3 MLJ 153 at160 CA

See also: (Siskina (Cargo Owners) v Distos SA [1979] AC

210)
INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTIONS
What is it?

In the words of Salleh Abbas FJ:

Interlocutory injunction is a temporary and discretionary remedy.
The court is not concerned with the chances of success or
failure of the appellants in proving their suit at trial. The court is
concerned with what it has to do to protect the right of the
parties so that no irreparable injury would caused to either of
them.
Lian Keow Sdn Bhd v Overseas Credit Finance Bhd
[1982] 2 MLJ 162

Is limited to last until a further order, or until the final

hearing of the case.
 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS

General Purpose:
To maintain or preserve the status quo.
To prevent hardship or prejudice to one or other parties.
To preclude one party from overreaching or outwitting the
opposite party.
To prevent surprise at trial - Ensure all cards are on
the table.
To preserve a fair balance between the parties and to give
them due protection while awaiting the finality of any
proceedings.
 MODE OF APPLICATION

By Notice of Application (Form 57)

Application - made in chambers or open

court
Affidavit - written evidence under oath
containing material and
relevant facts or statements
by way of evidence relating
to the matter in question
 MODE OF APPLICATION

Notice of Application (Form 57)

Ex Parte Applications
Where it is a matter of urgency
Made by affidavit Lim Hean Pin v Thean Seng Co Sdn Bhd [1992]
2 MLJ 10
Full & Frank Disclosure No F&F Disclosure may result in the
ex parte being set aside. This discretion is exercised based on
the nature and severity of the non disclosure

party seeking ex parte injunctions must proceed with the highest

good faith, and keep back no material facts" - Schmitten v. Faules
[1893] WN 64
 MODE OF APPLICATION

Setting aside Ex-Parte orders (Order 32 rule 6 ROC 2012)

"There is a right in interlocutory proceedings for a party

to apply to set aside an order made in his absence,
whether or not the matter had been heard on its merits,
and whether the matter was an appeal against the
decision of the registrar or an application in chambers
per se

RHB Bank Bhd v F G G Wood Mouldings Industries Sdn

Bhd [2001] 4 MLJ 86
 Order 29

Order 29 r 1: Even a Defendant may

apply for an ex parte injunction

PERMODALAN MBF SDN. BHD. v. TAN SRI

DATUK SERI HAMZAH ABU SAMAH & ORS.
[1988] 1 CLJ 244 (Rep) [1988] 1 CLJ 31 which had
held that a defendant may not make an application
for an injunction on an ex-parte basis is no longer
good law.
 Order 29 (cont)

Mandatory conditions in support of the

application? To satisfy the requirements as
set out in r 1(2A) affidavit must contain
(amongst others):

Facts giving rise to the claim and application

Facts relied to justify the application ex parte
any facts which may lead to the Court not to grant the
application ex parte or at all
The precise relief sought
 Order 29 (cont)

If originating process is not issued within two days of

the Order, the injunction may be discharged r 1(3)

O29 states that an ex-parte application is only valid

for 21 days from the date of the order

Order for interim injunction must be made in Form 53

 Order 29 (cont)

Order 29, rule 1

(2B) Unless sooner revoked or set aside, an interim injunction
obtained on an ex-parte application shall automatically
lapse at the end of 21 days from the date on which it is
granted.

(2BA)The ex parte interim injunction must be served on the

relevant party within one week of the date of the order
granting the Interim injunction, and the Court when granting
the injunction must forthwith fix a date for inter partes
hearing to be held before the expiry of the 14 days
 Order 29 (cont)

Order 29 r 1(2BA) has been amended to state that

the Court must fix the inter partes date within 14
days of the ex-parte Order, and not 21 days as
under RHC.
 Order 29 (cont)

Note:

Order 29 will apply to the Sessions

Court only when the Subordinate Courts
Amendment Act 2010 comes into effect.
Interlocutory Injunctions

Guidelines by Lord Diplock: American

Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] A.C. 396

Gopal Sri Ram JCA: Keet Gerald Francis

Noel John v Mohd Noor @ Harun Abdullah &
2 Ors [1995] 1 AMR 373
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon
Ltd [1975] A.C. 396
Guidelines :

a) There must be a serious question to be tried;

b) P must show that damages would not be an adequate

final remedy; and

c) The interim relief is justified on the balance of

convenience weigh the balance of convenience in
deciding whether to grant an injunction.
 Balance of convenience

Is an evaluation of the degree of harm either party might suffer if

the injunction is, or is not granted,
And the extent to which such harm could be compensated by
damages
Court is not required to consider this test where there is no
arguable defence
Court is required to consider the essential justice of the case
Syarikat Jeleta Bumi Sdn Bhd v Nadarajah a/l Ramasamy
[2003] 5 MLJ 542
Defendants occupying the premises for several generations,
to ask them to vacate and cause the premises to be
demolished would cause great hardship as they were poor
and did not have alternative place to stay
See also Chong Chooi Ying v Guan Soon Development Pte Ltd
[1991] 2 CLJ 2277
b) Balance of convenience test
(cont)

Other factors:
The importance of preserving status quo
of parties ( Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v
Milk Marketing Board (1983) 3 AC 130 )
Relative strength of parties respective
cases
Public interest (Zainal Abidin bin Omar v
Tenaga Nasional Berhad [1993] 4 CLJ
130)
c) Adequate remedy

If the applicant succeeds at the trial, an award

of damages would be adequate
compensation, then interlocutory injunction
will be refused.
Parkway Properties Pte Ltd v Page One-
The Book Shor Pte Ltd [1986] 1 MLJ 291
Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd v NS Water
Sdn Bhd [2004] 5 MLJ 430
Situations in which American
Cyanamid is inapplicable

Not applicable to an irrevocable letter of credit

and to an on demand performance bond.
Lotteworld Engineering & Construction Sdn
Bhd) v Castle Inn Sdn Bhd & Anor [2000] 3
MLJ 339
Where the Applicant does not have the legal
status to claim for injunction.
Ming Yueh Holdings Sdn Bhd v Kong Ming
Bank Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 374
American Cyanamid is inapplicable
(cont) - Winding Up petition
When a court exercises its discretion to issue an
injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding up,
it exercises its inherent jurisdiction.
Tan Kok Tong v Hoe Hong Trading Co. Sdn Bhd
[2007] 2 CLJ 305
When deciding whether to grant an injunction to
restrain a petition that is based on a statutory
demand for a debt, the court must be satisfied that
the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial
grounds.
Stonegate Securities Ltd v. Gregory [1980] 1 All
ER 241
American Cyanamid is inapplicable -
Winding Up petition (cont)

Stonegate Securities Ltd v Gregory [1980] 1 All ER 241

When deciding whether to grant an injunction to
restrain a petition that is based on a statutory
demand for a debt, the court must be satisfied that
the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds.
Hence it is not enough that there is a serious
question to be tried. In other words, this is one of
those cases to which the general test laid down
in American Cynamid.
American Cyanamid is inapplicable -
Winding Up petition (cont)

Natseven TV Sdn Bhd v Television New Zealang Ltd [2001] 4

CLJ 722, Low Hop Bing J

American Cynamid Co v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396; [1975] 1 All ER 504

as applied in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor bin Abdullah &
Ors [199] 1 MLJ 193 is not applicable as the applications there were not
applications to restrain winding up petitions or proceedings, such as in the
instant case before me. Illustration of a prima facie case may be provided
by necessary evidence that there is a bona fide dispute by the plaintiff
in relation to the statutory demand or that the plaintiff is solvent.
When Injunctions may not be granted?

I. Delay - Evercrisp Snack Products (M) Sdn Bhd v Sweeties

Food Industries Sdn Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 297

Plaintiff was suspended for six months and sought interim

relief after delay of two(2) months; interim injunction
refused as discretionary remedies are exceptional in
nature and should not be made available to those who
sleep on their rights.
When Injunctions may not be granted?

Larut Consolidated Bhd & Anor v Khoo Ee Bee & ors [1997] 5
MLJ 77
There was a delay of over 3 years before the Plaintiff sought
redress from the court. The court however held that ongoing
negotiations is excusable:
For delay to operate as a bar, it was essential that it should
prejudice the defendants. From the facts of the case, in no way
whatsoever were the defendants disadvantaged by the delay.
The plaintiffs had raised sufficient evidence to warrant the
grant of the ex parte Mareva injunction. The plaintiffs had also
satisfactorily explained the delay in that their main cause of
action was the tort of conspiracy which ought to be pleaded
with great particularity and required sufficient evidence.
When Injunctions may not be granted?

Ongoing negotiations (cont)

As for the delay in the application for interim injunction.

I believe the defendants are not prejudiced. Besides the
delay was due to ongoing negotiations between the
parties. Also a delay of two years was excused in Larut
Consolidated Bhd v Khoo Ee Bee [1997] 5 MLJ 77.

SAP (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. I World HRM Net Sdn Bhd &
Anor [2006] 2 MLJ 678
When Injunctions may not be granted?

II. Full and Frank Disclosure

Order 29 r 2A RHC
Duty to disclose to the court all matters which are material to the
proceedings including any defence that the applicant has
reason to believe may be advanced by the other party.

The provisions of O 29 r 2A were introduced by amendment in

order to ensure that ex parte injunctions of any sort were not
granted, but only in cases where they were truly called for.
When Injunctions may not be granted?

Full and Frank Disclosure (cont)

Having perused the affidavit in question, we find that

there has not been even a feeble attempt to meet the
requirements of r 2A. On this ground alone, the ex parte
injunction ought to have been dissolved by the learned
judge.

Motor Sports International Ltd (servants or Agents at

Federal Territory of Labuan) & Ors v Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd
[1996] 2 MLJ 605
However

Circumstances where the court may still grant the injunction

despite failure to make full and frank disclosure:-

(a) fact was not known or its relevance was not perceived
by the applicant;
(b) the Defendant has not been prejudiced.

See: Asia Polyurethane Manufacturing Pte. Ltd. v. Woon

Sow Liong [1990] 2 MLJ 463
When Injunctions may not be granted?

III. No cause of action

Indorsement in writ must disclose a justifiable cause of action

Lim Hean Pin v. Thean Seng Co Sdn Bhd & Ors [1992] 2 MLJ 10

One of the essential requirements for granting and interlocutory

injunction is that the court must be satisfied that there is a serious
question to be tried and the grant of an injunction depends on
whether there is a cause of action - Lim Chong Construction Co Sdn
Bhd v. Silam Quarry Sdn Bhd [1990] 2 MLJ 423
When Injunctions may not be granted?

IV. Other matters to be considered

Compliance with Order 29 r 2(A) for Ex-Parte.
Equitable Principles (unclean hands).
Duty to Full and Frank Disclosure.
Motor Sports International Ltd (servants or Agents at Federal
Territory of Labuan) & Ors v Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd [1996] 2 MLJ
605
All the proper, necessary and interested parties must be before
the court for the application.
Hong Kong Vegetable Oil Company Ltd v Malin Sirinaga
Wicker & Ors [1978] 2 MLJ 13
MAREVA INJUNCTION
Mareva v. International Bulkcarriers Ltd
[1980] 1 All ER 213

In that case, an injunction was granted to

restrain the defendant from improperly
disposing of his assets or concealing, or
moving them abroad for the sole purpose of
defeating an action against him.

The courts have inherent powers under O 92

r4 to grant Mareva injunction.
Mareva injunction

Only granted if satisfies the 3 fold test

(a) Whether the applicant has an arguable
case?;

(b) The respondent has assets within

jurisdiction?; and

(c) Is there a risk of dissipation?

Mareva Injunction - Procedure

Ex-parte application supported by affidavit.

Must set out information to the existence of
the assets sought and the grounds for belief
that a refusal would involve a real risk that
assets would be dissipated and if judgment
obtained in his favour, the Defendant will not
be in a position to pay it.
Mareva Injunction

Considerations in applying for Mareva

How broad need the terms of the proposed injunction be to

safeguard the plaintiffs claim.
To what particular assets of the proposed defendant should
the injunction be applied-identifying the same.
If it is known that assets are in the hands of 3rd parties,
everything should be done to define their location. i.e
Bank:-
(a) which bank(s)
(b) address of relevant branch
(c) Account numbers-if possible
Mareva Injunction

Considerations in applying for Mareva

See also : Tan Sri Dato Dr Awang Had B Salleh v
Dato Dr Haji Mohamad Haniffa Bin Haji Abdullah
[2007] 6 MLJ 293

Interim order granted to preserve status quo by

restraining Defendant from disposing shares and
cash as Plaintiff had a genuine proprietary tracing
claim.
Mareva Injunction

Practice Point, the Mareva Order should :-

clearly identify the assets covered, and to what extent, e.g
(a) The location of the money
(b) The bank which holds it and which branch
(c) the number and type of account.

make clear whether the Order covers all assets held by the
bank (including chattels) or just monies. If Plaintiff is unsure:
(a) to include all assets in the order
(b) to ask the court to order the defendant to swear an
affidavit listing his assets and their value.
Mareva Injunction

Factors vitiating a Mareva order

No good arguable case

Failure to disclose
Set off
Insufficient evidence of risk of
dissipation
Variation of order
 Mareva Injunction

Factors vitiating a Mareva order (cont)

No provision for the Ds necessities

The Mareva injunction granted was oppressive as the

order failed to make provisions for the fourth defendant's
living expenses and legal costs and it also overstated the
maximum monetary limits of the injunction's intended
coverage. It was sound law that a failure to provide for
living expenses and for payment of ordinary debts as they
become due in an order for a Mareva injunction ought to
be valid grounds to discharge that order.

Larut Consolidated Bhd & Anor v Khoo Ee Bee & ors

[1997] 5 MLJ 77
Mareva Injunction

Limitation to Mareva order:-

No priority
Its not a pre-trial attachment but a relief in personam
which prohibits certain acts in relation to the assets in
question hence limits the relief sought through the
Order.
Does not block a judgment creditor
A judgment creditor can enforce a judgment against
frozen assets. See Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey
Shipping Co. SA [1980] 2 WLR 488
Does not block a pre-existing creditor.
Mareva Injunction

How to avoid limits to Mareva

Seek from defendant a consideration for discharge of
Mareva:-
(a) Compel D to pay money into court
(b) Compel D to provide a bond or guarantee that
the Plaintiffs debt will be met
[The Assios [1979] 1 Lloyds Rep. 331]
ANTON PILLER
Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing
Processes Ltd [1976] 1 All ER 405

Preconditions
extremely strong prima facie case against the D.
damage, potential or actual to the P is great if the
order is not granted.
clear evidence that the D has in his possession
incriminating documents.
real possibility that the D may destroy such
incriminating material before any application inter
partes can be heard.
Anton Piller

Basic Requirements (amongst others):

Arthur Anderson & Co v Interfood Sdn Bhd [2005] 6 MLJ
239 at 253:
(a) defendant has in its possession the relevant documents
and/or materials being sought for and that there is a
real possibility that the defendant may destroy such
documents and/or materials,
(b) applicant required to make a full and frank disclosure.

Yousif v Salama [1980] 3 All ER 405

The court had a discretion to grant an Anton Piller order to
enable the preservation of a document which did not itself
form the subject matter of the action.
Anton Piller

Duty of full and frank disclosure (cont)

if the duty of full and frank disclosure was not observed
by the plaintiff and that there were misleading
averments advanced by the plaintiff, the court is entitled
to discharge the Anton Piller order.

Apparatech (M) Sdn Bhd v Ng Hock Chong & Anor [2006] 1 CLJ
60, [2006] 2 MLJ 61
Anton Piller

Anton Piller may include a batch of other orders:

An injunction to restrain
Particular activities
An order to disclose the names and addresses of 3rd
parties mixed up in the allegedly tortuous activities.
An order directing the Defendant
To permit a search of its premises and the removal of
particular items
Immediately disclose the whereabouts of materials or
information covered by the Order
Privilege against Self-Incrimination

At Common Law

Rank Film Distributors Ltd & Others v Video Information

Centre & Others [1980] 2 All ER 273 (CA), [1981] 2 All ER 76
(HL)

the English Court of Appeal held that part of the Anton

Piller order requiring the disclosure of certain
incriminating evidence was contrary to well established
principle of privilege against self-incrimination and
would accordingly be expunged.
Privilege against Self-Incrimination

In Malaysia
In Television Broadcasts Ltd & Ors v Mandarin
Video Holdings Sdn Bhd [1983] 2 MLJ 346, the
court held that a person is not entitled to claim such
privilege. In that case, the Court held that in this
country the privilege against self-incrimination had
been withdrawn by section 132 of the Evidence Act,
1950.
Privilege against Self-Incrimination

In Malaysia (cont)
It was held further in Television Broadcasts Ltd that
such privilege will only be available should the Anton
Piller order be modified to include a statement that
the Ds are to be informed that the answers given will
not subject them to the risk of prosecution and
criminal proceedings except a prosecution for giving
false evidence.
See also :
Arjunan v Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Ladang [1993] 1
MLJ 326
Attorney General of Hong Kong v Zauyah Wan Chik & Ors and
anor appeal [1995] 2 MLJ 620, CA
Privilege against Self-Incrimination

In Malaysia (cont)

However the case of PMK Rajah v. Worldwide

Commodities Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) [1985] 1 MLJ
86 held that the case of Television Broadcasts Ltd
had wrongly interpreted the application of Section
132 of the Evidence Act.
Privilege against Self-Incrimination

In Malaysia (cont)
It was held in PMK Rajah a person served with
an Anton Piller order, is not subject to cross-
examination or re-examination hence they do
not fall within the meaning of the word
"witness" in section 132 of the Evidence Act. In
other words, section 132 does not apply at all
to discovery in respect of an Anton Piller order.
Erinford Injunction
Erinford Properties Ltd v Cheshire County
Council [1974] 2 All ER 448

It is an injunction to preserve the status quo pending

disposal of any appeal against the initial refusal of an
injunction:
the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of first instance
restraining the successful litigant from enjoying the fruits
of his success until the correctness of the decision in
question has been tested through the appellate process
Erinford Injunction

Considerations
whether there are special circumstances;
Probability that the order refusing an injunction may
be reversed;
Whether successful party ought to be free to act;
whether damages would be an adequate remedy;
Would the appeal be rendered nugatory.
Erinford Injunction

Eg.:

Injunction to restrain the sale of pledged shares or

property where the complaint is that sale is at an
undervalue. Erinford may not be granted.

vs

Injunction to restrain the D from continuing to excavate

which causes settlement cracks on Ps property. Interim
injunction refused. However Erinford might be allowed
so that the Ps appeal may not be rendered nugatory.
Quia Timet Injunction

To prevent an injury occurring

to obtain injunction, applicant must show that
there is an imminent danger of substantial
damage being suffered, and that it will be
impossible for the applicant to protect himself
if the injunction is not granted
Prohibitory Injunction

Whether mandatory or prohibitory, the test is whether there

is a serious question to be tried. If there is, and no injustice
would be occasioned by the grant of the injunction then the
balance of convenience would ordinarily lie in favor of the
grant of the injunction
Datuk Johari Abdul Ghani & Ors v QSR Brands Bhd & Ors
[2007] 4 MLJ 19

Interstate M&E Sdn Bhd v Fore Sight Trading Sdn Bhd

[2007] 6 MLJ 677
 Mandatory Injunction

Principles
Must show a very strong probability upon the present facts that
grave damage will accrue to him in the future
Damages will not be sufficient or adequate remedy
Question of the cost to the defendant to do work to prevent or
lessen the likelihood of a future apprehended wrong Redland
Bricks Ltd v Morris & Anor [1970] AC 652, 665

Interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions

The plaintiff has to show that it has an unusually strong and clear
case and that there are special circumstances in existence
warranting this court to grant the injunction in question Cekal
Berjasa Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Building Society Bhd [2005] 3 MLJ
646]
Mandatory Injunction (cont)

Never granted before trial save in exceptional

and extremely rare cases
Test is much more rigid to obtain an ex-parte
mandatory injunction
However, note the unprecedented order was
granted in Ayer Molek Rubber Co. Bhd & Ors
v Insas Bhd & Anor [1995] 2 MLJ 734
Mandatory Injunction Ayer
Moleks case

The High Court granted an ex-parte mandatory

injunction against the defendants to effect the
registration of the transfer of 540,000 shares of
the defendant to the plaintiff within 2 working
days.
Although Court of Appeal heavily criticised the
decision and went as far as to say that the courts
inherent powers have been abused, the Eusoff
Chin CJ however expunged the criticism in the
Federal Court.
Injunctions against the Government

Interim and Permanent Injunctions against

Government
S 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 Act does not
prohibit the grant of temporary injunctions against the
Government. In it was held that the section 'does not take
away therefore the right of the court to grant an interlocutory
injunction'.

Tengku Haji Jaafar & Anor v Government of the State of

Pahang [1978] 2 MLJ 105

Distinguish with:
Nanthakumaran v Jafanese Co-operative Housing Society
Ltd [1980] 1 MLJ114
 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT (cont)

Sabil Mulia (m) Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Hospital

Tengku Rahimah & Ors [2005] 3 MLJ 325

The courts have jurisdiction to grant interim and permanent

injunctions against any servant of the Government. Since a
Government servant or a member of the Cabinet may be
restrained by injunction, it is strictly unnecessary from a
practical point of view to decide whether the Government itself
may be restrained in appropriate circumstances .
See: TIDALMARINE ENGINEERING SDN BHD v. KERAJAAN
MALAYSIA [2012] 3 CLJ 385 ( where relevant cases are all
discussed )
Injunction in Defamation suits

Harakas v Baltic Merchantile and Shipping

Exchange Ltd [1982] 2 All ER 701

Where the defences of justification or qualified

privilege are raised to an action for libel, an
interlocutory injunction will not be granted unless
malice can be shown on the part of the publisher.
Injunction in Defamation suits
(cont)

Herbage v Pressdram Ltd [1984] 2 All

ER 769
It was held that the publication of spent convictions
is actionable only if activated by malice, in the
sense of irrelevant, spiteful or improper motive. An
injunction to restrain publication will only be
granted only if the evidence of malice is
overwhelming.
Injunction in Defamation Suits (cont)

The News Straits Times Press (M) Bhd v Airasia Bhd

[1987] 1 MLJ 36
The respondent claimed damages against the
appellants for libel alleged to be contained in articles
published in the Sunday Mail. The appellants in their
defence raised the defences of justification and fair
comment in the public interest.
Respondent had applied for an injunction and by ex
parte application applied for an interim injunction in
libel actions.
The News Straits Times Press (M) Bhd v
Airasia Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 36 (cont)

It was held that the judge should not have

granted the injunction against a defendant
who specifically pleaded justification and had
raised a defence fair comment on a matter of
public interest.
 THANK YOU

S. Nantha Balan
Email : nb@zulrafique.com.my
Tel : 03-6209 8371
Fax :03-6209 8373