You are on page 1of 13

Interlocutory

Injunction
Chia Eng Yi A161637
Wong Yee Liin A158990
Darul Fikir v Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
[2018] 1 LNS 782
Plaintiff Defendant

Parties to
the Case
Darul Fikir v Dewan Bahasa
Darul Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka
Fikir (DF) Dan Pustaka (DBP)
[2018] 1 LNS 782
High Court case. A partnership which is Enter contract with
an exclusive distributor Plaintiff for the print,
of an Islamic religious supply and distribute
book, “Mushaf Al Quran of Mushaf Al Quran
Bertajwid dan Bertajwid dan
Berwarna” (Book). Berwarna” (Book).
3 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTON
FACT OF THE CASE
Darul Fikir v Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
[2018] 1 LNS 782

How does it happened? Continue.. Here comes the dispute..


By a letter from Ministry of On 2.9.2016, DF then On 18.9.2017, DBP issued
Education (MOE) dated entered into a contract an open tender inviting
19.4.2016, MOE appointed with DBP to print, supply and Bumiputera book suppliers
DF to supply the book for distribute the books. that registered with DBP to
primary school students
throughout whole Malaysia bid for a contract to print,
bind and supply the books.
4 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
ISSUE

1. Is DBP a legal entity?


2. Whether damages are an adequate remedy for Plaintiff.
3. Where does balance of convenience lie?
4. Whether the granting of injunction is contrary to public
interest?

5 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX


Arguments
DBP had breached the contract ... Ok.. Let me think about it for
between us ! I want to filed an awhile..
application for an interlocutory
injunction to restrain DBP from:
• Acting on tender
• Performing any work on the
printing and supply of the
Books without my written
consent!!

Darul Dewan
Bahasa dan Wong Kian
Fikir Pustaka Heong J
Plaintiff Defendant High Court Judge

6 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IMAGES JUST FOR ILLUSRATION PURPOSE


DECISION
oHigh Court had dismissed the
application of interlocutory
injunction by plaintiff with
costs.

7 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IMAGE JUST FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE


RATIONALE
How did Court come to this decision?

By referring to the case of


La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob
Holdings Sdn Bhd
[2018] 7 MLJ 305

8 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
RATIONALE
La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob Holdings Sdn Bhd
[2018] 7 MLJ 305

1st Is there a bona fide and serious 2nd Whether damages are an
approach question to be tried? adequate remedy for Darul Fikir
approach (P).

3rd Where does balance of


convenience lie in favor of grant
approach of an interlocutory injunction?

4th The Court may still exercise its


discretion to refuse an interim
approach prohibitory injunction on policy or
equitable ground.
9 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX
RATIONALE
1) Is DBP a legal entity? And is there a serious 2) Whether damages are an adequate remedy
and bona fide question to be tried? for Darul Fikir (P).

• Board of Control of DBP should be the legal • Clause 5 and schedule E of the contract,
entity, not the DBP. RM8,175,998.42 for plaintiff’s service.
• S. 3(1), 6(1), 7(1), (2) and 26 of DBPA 1959. • Plaintiff has the burden of proof for the
• “Equity follows the law” damages are not an adequate remedy.

• Granting of the injunction to DBP will • Plaintiff failed to do so.


contrary to DBPA’s long title.
• If granting the injunction, the order cannot be
enforced against a non-entity.
• “Equity does not act in vain”
• Plaintiff (DF) wrongly sued.

10 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION MM.DD.20XX


RATIONALE
3) Where does balance of convenience lie in 4) The Court may still exercise its discretion to
refuse an interim prohibitory injunction on policy or
favor of grant of an interlocutory injunction? equitable ground.

• If granting of injunction > lower risk of • Court still refuse to grant on the ground of
injustice than refusal, BOC lies on granting, public interest.
than it should be granted.
• Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor
• If granting of injunction > greater risk of bin Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193
injustice than refusal, BOC lies on refusing,
• Gopal Sri Ram JCA: interlocutory restraining
than if should not be granted.
injunction should consider public interest.
• Court view refusal of granting injunction
• Public interest of the primary school
carried lower risk of injustice.
students for their religious education.
• Damage is an adequate remedy.
• Students throughout Malaysia will deprived of
the Book for purpose of religious education.

11 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION MM.DD.20XX


COMMENTARY

12 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
THANK YOU!
Any questions?

You might also like