law

1. •TOPIC 1

2. INTRODUCTION
 PRE-TRIAL REMEDIES ARE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE LITIGANT
BEFORE THE FULL TRIAL TAKES PLACE.
 AMONG THEM ARE:
i. INJUNCTIONS
ii. DETENTION, PRESERVATION OR INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
iii. POWER TO TAKE SAMPLES
iv. SALE OF PERISHABLE PROPERTY
v. ARREST AND ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT
vi. INTERIM PAYMENTS

3. INJUNCTION
• AN INJUNCTION IS A JUDICIAL ORDER WHEREBY A PARTY IS ORDERED TO
REFRAIN FROM DOING OR TO DO A PARTICULAR ACT OR THING.
• AN INJUNCTION WHICH ORDERS A PARTY TO DO A CERTAIN ACT IS
REFERRED TO AS A ‘MANDATORY INJUNCTION’.
• AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING A PARTY FROM DOING A CERTAIN ACT IS
REFERRED TO AS ‘PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION’ OR ‘NEGATIVE INJUNCTION’.
• AN INJUNCTION GRANTED AFTER A TRIAL IS CALLED A ‘FINAL
INJUNCTION’ OR ‘PERPETUAL INJUNCTION’.
• AN INJUNCTION WHICH IS GRANTED BEFORE A TRIAL IS CALLED AN
‘INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION’ OR ‘INTERIM INJUNCTION’.

4. • AN INJUNCTION WHICH IS GRANTED TO PREVENT AN INJURY OCCURRING
IS CALLED ‘QUIA TIMET’ INJUNCTION, WHERE ‘QUIA TIMET’ MEANS
‘BECAUSE OF FEAR’ AND REFERS TO A WRONGFUL ACT WHICH IS
THREATENED OR IMMINENT BUT NOT YET DONE.
• IN PPES RESORTS SDN BHD V KERUNTUM SDN BHD, THE COURT STATED
THAT A ‘QUIA TIMET’ INJUNCTION IS A PROCEEDING BY WHICH THE
COURT IS ABLE TO PREVENT ITS JURISDICTION FROM BEING STULTIFIED.
• AN ‘ERINFORD’ INJUNCTION IS AN INJUNCTION GRANTED PENDING APPEAL
AGAINST THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION.
• KILANG KOSFARM SDN BHD V KOSMA NUSANTARA BERHAD, AMONG THE
ISSUES WAS WHETHER THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE AND APPLICATION FOR AN ERINFORD INJUNCTION.

5. • IN COCOA PROCESSORS SDN BHD V UNITED MALAYAN BANKING
CORP. BHD & ORS (NO.12), IT WAS STATED THAT AN INJUNCTION
UNDER THE ERINFORD PRINCIPLE WILL NOT BE GRANTED IF THE
PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED IN DAMAGES
FOR THE TEMPORARY SUFFERING THAT WILL ENSUE BETWEEN THE
DATE THE INJUNCTION WAS REFUSED AND THE DATE WHEN THE
APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF IF THE DECISION IS REVERSED

6. SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1950
• SECTION 50 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1950 STATES THAT THE GRANTING OF
PREVENTIVE RELIEF IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.
• THE RELIEF MAY BE BY WAY OF TEMPORARY OR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.
• SECTION 51 OF THE ACT DEFINES THE SCOPE OF TEMPORARY AND PERPETUAL
INJUNCTIONS AS FOLLOWS:
i. TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS ARE SUCH INJUNCTIONS AS ARE TO CONTINUE FOR
A SPECIFIED TIME, OR UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. THEY MAY
BE GRANTED AT ANY STAGE OF A SUIT AND ARE REGULATED BY THE LAW
RELATING TO CIVIL PROCEDURE.
ii. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION CAN ONLY BE GRANTED BY THE DECREE MADE AT
THE HEARING AND UPON THE MERITS OF THE SUIT.

7. • SECTION 52 OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS MAY BE GRANTED BY THE COURT. IT PROVIDES:
1) A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION MAY BE GRANTED TO PREVENT THE BREACH
OF AN OBLIGATION EXISTING IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT, WHETHER
EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION;
2) WHEN SUCH AN OBLIGATION ARISES FROM CONTRACT, THE COURT
SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE RULES AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
CHAPTER II OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1950;
3) WHEN THE DEFENDANTS INVADES OR THREATENS TO INVADE THE
PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO OR ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY THE COURT MAY
GRANT A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.

8. • SECTION 54 LAYS DOWN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE GRANTING
OF AN INJUNCTION SHALL BE REFUSED BY THE COURT.
• IN SABIL MULIA (M) SDN BHD V PENGARAH HOSPITAL TENGKU AMPUAN
RAHIMAH & 3 ORS, GOPAL SRI RAM JCA (AS HE THEN WAS) MADE THE
FOLLOWING THE OBSERVATIONS:
a) THE COURTS HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO GRANT INTERIM AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ANY SERVANT OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
b) IN ADDITION, S 29 OF THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT 1956
DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE GRANT OF INTERIM INJUNCTIONS AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT.
c) AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO JURISDICTIONAL BAR TO THE HIGH COURT
GRANTING THE INSTANT APPELLANT THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT

9. MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS
• MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS ARE ORDERS OF COURT WHICH COMMAND THE
RESPONDENTS TO DO SOME POSITIVE ACT OR PARTICULAR THING.
• WESTMINSTER BRYMBO COAL & COKE CO V CLAYTON.
• IN SHAMSUDIN BIN SHAIK JAMALUDIN V KENWOOD ELECTRONICS
TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD, THE COURT SET OUT THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVING
THE GRANTING OF THE INTERLOCUTORY MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
• IN GIBB & CO V MALAYSIA BUILDING SOCIETY BHD, THE FEDERAL COURT STATED
THAT AN INTERIM OR INTERLOCUTORY MANDATORY INJUNCTION IS NEVER
GRANTED BEFORE TRIAL SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTREMELY RARE CASES.

10. INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
• INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION ISSUED AT ANY TIME DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE FULL
TRIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE APPLICANT, BEFORE
THE FULL MERITS OF THE CASE IS HEARD, AND DISPOSED OF.
• CALTEX OIL MALAYSIA LTD. V TEE TAN SONG, HRH RAJA AZLAN SHAH J (AS HRH THEN WAS)
OBSERVED:
 IT IS ESTABLISHED LAW THAT A COURT UPON AN APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION IN SUPPORT OF A LEGAL RIGHT WILL DEAL WITH THE INJUNCTION UPON THE
AFFIDAVITS AND DOCUMENTS VERIFIED THEREBY AND WILL CONFINE ITSELF DIRECTLY WITH
THE IMMEDIATE OBJECT SOUGHT, IN ORDER TO LEAVE THE ULTIMATE QUESTION BETWEEN THE
PARTIES TO BE DECIDED ON EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE TRIAL
• IN NGOI THIAM WHO V CTOS SDN BHD & 2 ORS, THE COURT CONSIDERED WHETHER AN
INTERIM INJUNCTION MAY BE GRANTED IN DEFAMATION SUIT.

11. INJUNCTION
• AN APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION IS NOT A SEPARATE CAUSE OF
ACTION.
• IN IMPSA (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD V BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD &
ORS,
IT IS TRITE THAT AN APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION IS NOT A SEPARATE
CAUSE OF ACTION IN ITSELF, BUT MERELY AN ANCILLARY CLAIM, UNABLE
TO EXIST BY ITSELF.
IN ORDER FOR A PARTY TO OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION FROM THE COURT,
THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE A PRE-EXISTING CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
THE DEFENDANTS.

12. • A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT UNDER ORDER 29 TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENT SET OUT IN ORDER 29 RULE 1 (2A) IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT OF THE EX-PARTE APPLICATION. ORDER 29 RULE 2A STATES:
• THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION MADE EX PARTE MUST
CONTAIN A CLEAR AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF:
a) THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM;
b) THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION;
c) THE FACTS RELIED ON TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION EX PARTE,
INCLUDING DETAILS OF ANY NOTICE GIVEN TO THE OTHER PARTY OR, IF
NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN, THE REASON FOR NOT GIVING NOTICE;
d) ANY ANSWER BY THE OTHER PARTY (OR WHICH HE IS LIKELY TO ASSERT)
TO THE CLAIM OR APPLICATION;

13. e) ANY FACTS WHICH MAY LEAD THE COURT NOT TO GRANT THE
APPLICATION EX PARTE OR AT ALL;
f) ANY SIMILAR APPLICATION MADE TO ANOTHER JUDGE, AND THE
OTHER MADE ON THAT APPLICATION;
g) THE PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT….

14. • ORDER 29 STATES THAT AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION IS ONLY VALID FOR
TWENTY ONE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.
• ORDER 29 RULE 1 (2BA) STATES:
(2BA) AN EX PARTE INTERIM INJUNCTION MUST BE SERVED WITHIN SEVEN
DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDER, AND THE COURT WHEN GRANTING
THE ORDER MUST FIX A DATE TO HEAR THE APPLICATION INTER PARTES
WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.
• ORDER 29 RULE 1(2C) STATES:
A COURT SHALL NOT GRANT AN INJUNCTION ON AN EX PARTE
APPLICATION IF THE EFFECT IS TO STOP THE HOLDING OR PROGRESS OF A
MEETING OF A BODY CORPORATE, SOCIETY, SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION,
UNION, OR ORGANIZATION, CLUB OR BODY OF PERSONS.

15. • AMERICAN CYANAMIDE HELD THAT THIS PRINCIPLE WAS OVERSTATED AND
THEYSET OUT THE TEST REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION WILL BE GRANTED.
• FELLOW V FISHER, SIR JOHN PENNYCUICK SUMMARIZED THE PRINCIPLE
ESTABLISHED IN THE AMERICAN CYNAMIDE CASE AS FOLLOWS:
1) PROVIDED THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS QUESTION TO BE
TRIED, THERE IS NO RULE THAT THE PARTY SEEKING AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION MUST SHOW A PRIMA FACIE CASE.
2) THE COURT MUST CONSIDER WHETHER THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE LIES IN
FAVOUR OF GRANTING OR REFUSING INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF.
3) ‘AS TO THAT’ (BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE), THE COURT SHOULD FIRST
CONSIDER WHETHER, IF THE PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS, HE WOULD BE ADEQUATELY
COMPENSATED BY DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS SUSTAINED BETWEEN THE
APPLICATION AND THE TRIAL, IN WHICH CASE NO INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION SHOULD NORMALLY BE GRANTED.
4) IF DAMAGES WOULD NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY, THE COURT
SHOULD THEN CONSIDER WHETHER, IF THE PLAINTIFF FAILS, THE DEFENDANT
WOULD BE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED UNDER THE PLAINTIFF’S

16. EXCEPTION TO AMERICAN CYANAMIDE
PRINCIPLE
• NANTHAKUMAR V JAFFNESE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD &
ORS, IT WAS STATED THAT THE COURT COULD NOT GRANT AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST A GOVERNMENT OFFICER.
• THE COURT NO THE FACTS STATED THAT IT MAY ONLY GRANT A
DECLARATORY ORDER.
• AR PL PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR V PL AR LETCHUMANAN CHETTIAR & ANOR,
THE COURT HELD THAT AN INJUNCTION DOES NOT LIE AGAINST THE
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, WHO HAS A STATUTORY DUTY UNDER THE
NATIONAL LAND CODE TO REGISTER TRANSFER OF PROPERLY PRESENTED
TO HIM FOR REGISTRATION. HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO
ORDER THE REGISTRAR’S CAVEAT TO PREVENT FRAUD OR IMPROPER
DEALING IN LAND,WHETHER OR NOT THE REGISTRAR IS A PARTY TO THE

17. • SAW SENG KEE V DIRECTOR OF LANDS & MINES PENENG & ORS, THE
COURT STATED THAT IT WAS A SETTLED LAW THAT A PUBLIC
AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT BE RESTRAINED FROM EXCERCISING ITS
STATUTORY POWERS BY INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS, UNLESS
THE PLAINTIFF HAS SHOWN A REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESS IN HIS
CLAIM FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AT THE FINAL HEARING.
• A GENERAL RULE THE COURT WILL NOT ORDINARILY INTERFERE BY
INJUNCTION IN MATTERS WHICH DID NOT AFFECT ANY RIGHT TO
PROPERTY.
• LIM KAR BEE & ANOR V LIM POH BIN & ORS.

18. FORTUNA INJUNCTION
• FORTUNA HOLDINGS PTY LTD V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
[1978] VR 83]. IN CASES WHERE THE PLAINTIFF IS READY AND WILLING TO PAY
THE JUDGEMENT SUM OR DISPUTED SUM, SUBJECT TO APPEAL ETC, THE COURT IS
LIKELY TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION IF IT WARRANTS SO.
• IN PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD V MANIAMMAH MUNIANDY, THE COURT
OF APPEAL DISCUSSED THE PRINCIPLES RELATED TO ‘FORTUNA INJUNCTION’. THE
COURT HELD:
a) AN APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN AN INTENDED WINDING-
UP PETITION AGAINST A COMPANY IS KNOWN AS A “FORTUNA INJUNCTION”.
AN INJUNCTION OF THAT NATURE MAY BE GRANTED BY COURT WHERE THE
PRESENTATION OF THE PETITION MIGHT PRODUCE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO
THE COMPANY AND WHERE THE PROPOSED PETITION HAS NO CHANCE OF
SUCCESS.

19. PROCEDURE
• THE APPLICATION MADE BEFORE A JUDGE IN CHAMBERS MUST BE
SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THE RELEVANT FACTS SHOWING
WHY THE INJUNCTION IS NECESSARY AND IN EX-PARTE CASES SHOWING
THAT THE MATTER IS URGENT.
• THE APPLICATION MUST GIVE AN UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES. IF THE
APPLICATION IS MADE BEFORE THE ISSUE OF THE WRIT THEN THE
APPLICANT MUST GIVE A FURTHER UNDERTAKING TO FILE THE WRIT
FORTHWITH.
• THE ORDER MUST BE INDORSED WITH A PENAL NOTICE IN FORM 83.
• THERE ARE FEW FORMS OF PENAL NOTICE IN FORM 83.
• THE ORDER MUST BE PERSONALLY SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT.

20. EX-PARTE APPLICATION
• AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION IS ONLY SUITABLE FOR CASES OF REAL
URGENCY.
• MOTOR SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD 2 ORS V DELCONT (M) SDN
BHD, HELD THAT IT WAS MANDATORY TO COMPLY WITH ORDER
29 RULE 1(2A) OF THE RULES OF THE HIGH COURT, 1980.
• PNG SIAW LUAN V WONG TUI SAN & ORS, THE COURT STATED
THAT AN EX-PARTE INJUNCTION CAN BE SET ASIDE ON THE
GROUND THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT URGENCY TO JUSTIFY AN
EX-PARTE APPLICATION.

21. DELAY
• DELAY IN MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM RELIEF MAY BE
FATAL TO THE APPLICATION. IN EVERCRISP SNACK PRODUCTS (M)
SDN BHD & ANOR V SWEETIES FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD, THE
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE DEFENDANTS
FROM PASSING OFF OR ATTEMPTING TO PASS OFF THE GOODS.
• THE COURT HELD THAT ON THE FACTS THERE WAS UNREASONABLE
DELAY IN APPLYING FOR THE INTERIM RELIEF AND THE DELAY HAD
NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED.

22. MAREVA INJUNCTIONS
• MAREVA INJUNCTIONS DERIVE THE NAME FROM THE CASE OF MAREVA COMPANIA NAVIERA SA V
INTERNATIONAL BULK- CARRIERS SA, WHEREIN AN INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED TO RESTRAIN
THE DEFENDANT FROM IMPROPERLY DISPOSING OF ITS ASSETS, OR CONCEALING, OR MOVING
THEM ABROAD FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DEFEATING AN ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST IT.
• THE PRINCIPLES RELATING TO MAREVA INJUNCTIONS WERE DISCUSSED IN METROWANGSA ASSET
MANAGEMENT SDN BHD & ANOR V AHMAD BIN HAJI HASSAN & 4 ORS.
• MAREVA INJUNCTION WILL ONLY BE GRANTED IF THE APPLICANT CAN SATISFY THE THREE FOLD
TEST, NAMELY:
i. THE APPLICANT HAS AN ARGUABLE CASE (NOT NECESSARILY HE HAS MORE THAN fiFTY
PERCENT SUCCESS CHANCE.
ii. THE RESPONDENT HAS ASSETS WITHIN JURISDICTION; AND
iii. THERE IS A REAL RISK OF THE ASSETS BEING DISSIPATED OR REMOVED BEFORE JUDGMENT,
TO AVOID LIABILITY UNDER ANY POSSIBLE JUDGMENT.

23. PROCEDURE
• A MAREVA INJUNCTION CAN BE OBTAINED EVEN BEFORE AN ACTION HAS BEEN
COMMENCED OR EVEN AFTER THE FULL TRIAL.
• THE APPLICATION IS USUALLY MADE BY AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION BEFORE A JUDGE IN
CHAMBERS.
• THE APPLICANT IS HIS AFFIDAVIT MUST SET OUT THE RELEVANT FACTS SHOWING THAT
AN INJUNCTION IS NECESSARY.
• ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN V CENTURY HOTEL SDN BHD, IT WAS HELD
THAT:
a) THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT A MAREVA INJUNCTION
IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE
SCHEDULE TO THE COURTS OF JUDICATURE ACT 1964 ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE ENGLISH COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1925.

24. ANTON PILLER ORDERS
• ANTON PILLER ORDER DERIVES THE NAME OM THE CASE OF ANTON PILLER KG V
MANUFACTURING PROCESSES LTD, WHEREIN AN ORDER WAS GRANTED TO
COMPEL THE DEFENDANT TO PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF TO ENTER THE DEFENDANT’S
PREMISES TO SEARCH FOR AND TO SEIZE CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS
OR PROPERTY.
• CONDITIONS BEFORE THE ANTON PILLER ORDER CAN BE GRANTED.
i. APPLICANT MUST SHOW EXTREMELY STRONG PRIMA FACIE AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT;
ii. CLEAR EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT IS IN POSSESSION OF THE INCRIMINATING
MATERIAL, ETC., AND THAT THERE IS A REAL THREAT IT WILL BE REMOVED OR
DESTROYED;
iii. REFUSAL TO GRANT SUCH AN ORDER WILL HAVE A SERIOUS EFFECT ON THE
PLAINTIFF;

25. PROCEDURE
• THE APPLICATION IS MADE EX-PARTE, BEFORE A JUDGE IN CHAMBERS.
• THE APPLICANT IN HIS AFfiDAVIT MUST SET OUT THE RELEVANT FACTS SHOWING THAT AN
ORDER IS NECESSARY.
• HE MUST SET OUT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS OR PROPERTY SHOWING STRONG
EVIDENCE THAT SERIOUS HARM OR SERIOUS INJUSTICE WILL BE SUFFERED IF THE ORDER IS
NOT MADE.
• THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO STATE THE ADDRESS OF THE RELEVANT PREMISES THE
INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WILL BE FOUND.
• THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES.
• ASPATRA SDN BHD & 21 OTHER V BANK BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA BHD & ANOR
• PMK RAJAH V WORLDWIDE COMMODITIES SDN BHD & ORS, STATED THAT THE LAW
CLEARLY STATES THAT IF IN APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING AN EX-PARTE ORDER THE
PLAINTIFF HAD EITHER MISREPRESENTED OR SUPPRESSED MATERIAL FACTS, THE ORDER
WOULD BE DISSOLVED ON THAT GROUND ALONE.

26. DETENTION PRESERVATION OR
INSPECTION OF PROPERTY ETC. OF
SUBJECT MATTER OF AN ACTION
• IF THE COURT THINKS JUST,
i. MAKE AN ORDER FOR THE DETENTION, PRESERVATION OR
INSPECTION OF ANY PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER
OF SUCH ACTION OR AS TO WHICH ANY QUESTION MAY ARISE
THEREIN;
ii. FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES AFORESAID AUTHORISE ANY
PERSON TO ENTER UPON OR INTO ANY LAND OR BUILDING IN
THE POSSESSION OF ANY OTHER PARTY TO SUCH ACTION.

27. • THE PROVISION IN RESPECT OF INTERIM PRESERVATION OF
PROPERTY UNDER ORDER 29 RULE 2 OF THE RULES OF HIGH COURT
1980 WAS DISCUSSED IN CHONG THIAN FOOK & 396 ORS V
SARAWAK SHELL BERHAD & 8 ORS.
• AN APPLICATION FOR DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS FOR INJUNCTED SUM
WAS ALLOWED IN POLY ELECTRONICS ELECTRICAL (M) SDN BHD V
DALWOO CORPORATION.

28. SALE OF PERISHABLE PROPERTY
• ANY MOVABLE PROPERTY BEING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
ACTION, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO SPEEDY AND NATURAL DECAY OR
WHICH FOR ANY OTHER JUST AND SUFfiCIENT CAUSE MAY BE
DESIRABLE TO BE SOLD AT ONCE.

29. ARREST AND ATTACHMENT BEFORE
JUDGMENT
• SECTION 15 OF DEBTORS ACT, 1957, MAKES PROVISIONS FOR THE ARREST OF
THE DEFENDANT EVEN BEFORE JUDGMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE PLAINTIFF
SATISfiES THE COURT ON OATH THAT HE HAS A GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, AND THAT THE DEFENDANT, WITH INTENT TO
PREJUDICE THE PLAINTIFF, OR TO AVOID ANY PROCESS OF THE COURT, OR TO
OBSTRUCT OR DELAY THE EXECUTION OF ANY JUDGMENT THAT MAY BE MADE
AGAINST HIM:
a) HAS ABSCONDED OR LEFT THE STATE;
b) IS ABOUT TO ABSCOND OR LEAVE THE STATE; OR
c) HAS DISPOSED OF, OR REMOVED FROM THE STATE, HIS PROPERTY OR ANY
PART THEREOF,

30. • SECTION 19 OF DEBTORS ACT 1957, THE PLAINTIFF SATISfiES THE COURT
ON OATH THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS A GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION, AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT, AND
a) THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ABSENT FROM THE STATE AND THAT HIS
PLACE OF ABODE CANNOT BE DISCOVERED;
b) THE SERVICE OF THE WRIT OF SUMMONS CANNOT WITHOUT GREAT
DELAY OR DIFfiCULTY BE EFFECTED;
c) THAT THE DEFENDANT WITH INTENT TO OBSTRUCT OR DELAY THE
EXECUTION OF ANY JUDGMENT WHICH HAS BEEN OR MAY BE MADE
AGAINST HIM, HAS REMOVED OR IS ABOUT TO REMOVE, OR HAS
CONCEALED.

31. PROCEDURE
• AN APPLICATION FOR ARREST BEFORE JUDGMENT OR ATTACHMENT BEFORE
JUDGMENT IS MADE BY EX-PARTE APPLICATION SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT.
• THE ORDER AND THE AFFIDAVIT MUST BE SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE.
• THE ORDER MUST BE IN THE PRESCRIBE FORM STATING THE AMOUNT OF CLAIM
AN COSTS.
• BEFORE ANY ORDER OF ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY IS EXECUTED, THE PLAINTIFF
MUST DEPOSIT IN THE REGISTRY A SUFFICIENT SUM OF MONEY TO COVER
EXPENSES FOR THE ATTACHMENT AND FOR KEEPING POSSESSION OF THE
PROPERTY.
• IPOH GARDEN BERHAD SDN BHD V ISMAIL MAHYUDIN ENTERPRISE SDN BHD.
• NANYANG DEVELOPMENT (1966) SDN BHD V MALAYSIAN ARMED FORCES
COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

32. INTERIM PAYMENTS
• SECTION 25A OF COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1964 STATES:
 “INTERIM PAYMENT”, IN RELATION TO A PARTY TO ANY PROCEEDINGS, MEANS A
PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY DAMAGES, DEBT OR OTHER SUM EXCLUDING ANY
COSTS WHICH THAT PARTY MAY BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY TO OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ANOTHER PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS IF A FINAL JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF THE
COURT IN THE PROCEEDINGS IS GIVEN OR MADE IN FAVOUR OF THAT OTHER PARTY.
• JAMIL BIN HARUN V YANG KAMSIAH,
• ORDER 22A MAKES PROVISION FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR AN
ORDER REQUIRING THE DEFENDANT TO MAKE AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF
ANY DAMAGES, DEBT OR OTHER SUM WHICH HE MAY BE LIABLE TO PAY TO OR FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF.
• THE APPLICATION UNDER THIS RULE MUST BE MADE BY NOTICE OF APPLICATION IN
FORM 33 AND MAY ALSO BE INCLUDED IN A SUMMONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
UNDER ORDER 14. THE APPLICATION CAN BE MADE AT ANY TIME AFTER THE WRIT
HAS BEEN SERVED AND THE TIME LIMITED FOR HIM TO ACKNOWLEDGE SERVICE HAS
EXPIRED. THE APPLICATION UNDER THIS RULE MUST BE SUPPORTED WITH AN

33. • THE APPLICATION AND AFfiDAVIT MUST BE SERVED WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE.
• THE COURT MAY MAKE AN ORDER UNDER ORDER 22A RULE 3(1) IF IT IS
SATISfiED:
a) THAT THE DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT HAS
ADMITTED LIABILITY FOR THE PLAINTIFF ’S LOSSES;
b) THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS OBTAINED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES TO BE ASSESSED; OR
c) THAT IF THE ACTION PROCEEDED TO TRIAL, THE PLAINTIFF WOULD
OBTAIN JUDGMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT OR, WHERE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE DEFENDANTS,
AGAINST ANY OF THEM.

34. • NO ORDER FOR INTERIM PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT NOR ANY APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 22A RULE 2
OR RULE 10.