An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act. There are several types of injunctions including mandatory, prohibitory, perpetual, interlocutory, interim, ex parte, quia timet, and Mareva injunctions. A Mareva injunction specifically seeks to freeze a defendant's assets before judgment to ensure assets are not disposed of so that the plaintiff can recover damages if successful. Key requirements for a Mareva injunction are that the plaintiff must make full disclosure of all material facts and have a good arguable case against the defendant.

1. EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS
DEFINITION:
 (Hanbury & Martin – 758): “an order by the court to a party to the effect that he shall
do or refrain from doing a particular act.”
 Rimbunan Hijau Sdn. Bhd. V. Sarawak Plywood (M) Sdn. Bhd.
[1985] CLJ 275 FC: “An injunction is a form of judicial relief whereby the Court orders
a party to the proceedings either to refrain from doing specified acts or to do certain
specified acts.”
 An injunction is a judgment or order to do or refrain from doing something
 The remedy of injunction is based on equitable principles and is provided under s50-55
of the Specific Relief Act
 Given only where legal remedies are inadequate
CHARACTERISTIC OF AN INJUCTION
1. .A court’s order (High court) /contempt of court
2. Damages – inadequate
3. It is not a cause of action/ it is a relief sought to enforce right (legal/equitable rights
affected)
4. Discretionary
5. Acts in personam
6. Public interest prevails
7. No injunction against the government – directly or indirectly – Sec 29 Govt Proceedings
Act 1956 ;
TYPES OF INJUCTION
1. Mandatory injunctions (An order directing Df to do an act)
 Involves the performance of a positive act;
 Granted where the injury of the P cannot be estimated and sufficiently
compensated for by damages or is so serious & material that the restoration of
things to their former condition is the only way whereby justice can be restored;
 E.g. - an order directing a building to be pulled down.

2.  Similar to SP – diff. SP a remedy for breach of contract – injunction not
necessarily involves a contract.
 S53 SRA 1950: ‘When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to
compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing,
the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach
complained of, and also to compel the performance of the requisite acts.’
 Allen v Greenwood (1980)
 P – used green house (garden/20yrs)
 D – built a building – obstructed the light to the green hse – impossible
for P to grow plants
 P – Nuisance – mandatory injunction to demolish the building
2. Prohibitory (Pencegahan) injunctions
 Negative act – prohibits the performance of certain acts (restraint the
performance)
 More common than mandatory
 E.g. Nuisance, domestic violence, harassment, stalkers
 S.4( c) – Preventive relief – preventing a party from doing that which he is under
an obligation not to do
3. Perpetual Injunction
 Granted after final determination of the rights of the parties / after hearing the
merits of the case / after judgment on the merits of the case; inter partes hearing
 “perpetual” – not necessarily mean that the injunction remains in force forever
– after final hearing on the merits of the case.
 General principle:
i. Discretionary power of the court
o Discretionary power must be exercised in accordance with the
rule of precedence
ii. Continuous injury / Irreparable damage

3. o Continuous : purpose to prevent / relieve the P from the necessity
of bringing a series of actions to protect his right each time it is
infringed.
iii. Irreparable damage: protect the P’s right from being infringed to the
extent that it could not be compensated by damages.
iv. IOW, damages inadequate as a remedy
 How do you determine – damages adequate / not?
i. If damages not quantifiable. IOW, the damages (kerosakan) suffered
by the P cannot be quantified in terms of monetary compensation for e.g.
Nuisance cases
ii. Where damages as a remedy would be ineffective for e.g. In cases
where the D could not pay the P – Hodgson v. Duce.
iii. BUT – Nominal damages recoverable (Express Newspaper Ltd. V. Keys
[1980] IRLR 247)
 S.51(2): A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the
hearing and upon the merits of suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually
enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from commission of an act, which
would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.
 S 52(1) – situations Perpetual Injunction may be granted
4. Interlocutory Injunction
 As oppose to perpetual, interlocutory – granted before final determination;
 Only effective during the trial or before final judgment given as it serves as a
provisional measure taken at an earlier stage in the proceedings before court has
had an opportunity to hear and weigh fully the evidence on both sides;
 OBJECTIVE – to preserve Status Quo pending trial;
 May be granted ex parte;
 Non-permanent in nature / temporary;
 Interlocutory granted not necessarily mean perpetual will be granted.
 Principles Laid Down by American Cyanamid (Infringement of Intellectual
rights (patent of sterile absorbable surgical sutures) –P - Interlocutory I. to stop
D introducing the product.
i. Plaintiff’s case is not Frivolous or Vexatious

4. o P’s intentions is genuine NOT an attempt to harass D;
o IOW, serious question to be tried / substantial questions between
P & D to be determined at final hearing;
o Once this is established – BOC.
ii. Adequacy of damages
o P succeed damages adequate – no injunction;
o P succeed damages inadequate – injunction granted.
iii. Balance of Convenience
o Balance of the risk of doing injustice – court looks at the position
of each of the party and balance who will suffer greater if the
injunction is granted;
o Preservation of Status Quo – if BOC not clearly favour either
party;
o Relative Strength – (last resort) – strength of each party but only
consider this if strength of one party is disproportionate to that
of the other
iv. ‘Special Factors’
o “it is where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the respective
remedies in damages available to either party or to both, that the
question of balance of convenience arises. It would be unwise to
attempt even to list all the various matters which may need to be
taken into consideration in deciding where the balance lies, let
alone to suggest the relative weight to be attached to them. These
will vary from case to case …” Depending on individual cases
 Sivaperuman v. Heah Seok Yeong Realty Sdn. Bhd. [1978] FC - adopted ACY
 there was at least a serious question to be tried
 to adduce sufficiently precise factual evidence to satisfy the ct that he had a real
prospect of succeeding in his claim at the trial.
5. Interim injunction
 Temporary in nature (similar to interlocutory);
 To restrain – NOT until the trial over but until some specified period;
 Shorter period / length than interlocutory;

5.  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.
6. Ex parte Injunction (Interlocutory)
 “Ex parte” – one party – court hears one side only;
 Injunction granted to one party and the court had no opportunity to hear the
other side;
 Why? – granted to a P who needs a remedy urgently or if the other party
knows of the application will do injustice to the P and associated with
interlocutory.
 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 D’s premise so as to inspect and make copies of relevant documents and
other appropriate material.
7. Quia Timet Injunction (To prevent a threatened infringement of the Pf’s right which
has yet to take place.)
 Principles:
i. The applicant must prove the high probability of substantial damages as a
result of the Df’s actions
ii. ii. The harm and injury suffered is irreplaceable
 Morris v. Redlands Bricks Ltd. (1970) AC 652;
 Lord Upjohn observed that a quia timet injunction arises in the following two
types of case:
(i) A strong probability of grave damage occurring to him in future as a result of
the apprehended mischief; and
(ii) where harm has been done by the earlier actions of the defendant, and the
plaintiff has been compensated, but the plaintiff fears that future wrongs may
be committed by the defendant

6. 8. Mareva injunction
 Object: to freeze the D’s assets so as to ensure that they are not disposed before the
judgment leaving nothing for the P;
 Lister & Co. v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch D 1 CA
 P is prevented from obtaining an injunction restraining the D from removing
or disposing out of the jurisdiction property that would otherwise be available
to satisfy the judgment that the P would obtain against him.
 Principles of MI laid down in Third Chandris Shipping Corp v Unimarine SA
i. The P should make a full and frank disclosure of all matters in
his knowledge which are material for the Judge to know;
o Ali Fahd Shobokshi Group Ltd v. Moneim & Ors, The Times, 8
March 1989. – where a P who had obtained an ex-parte Mareva
without proper disclosure, the Ct would on an inter partes
motion, refuse to continue the order if the non-disclosure could
not be regarded as innocent.
o Bir v. Sharme , The Times, 7 December 1988 – 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.
ii. P should give particulars of his claim against the D, stating the
grounds of his claim and the amount thereof, and fairly stating
the points made against it by the D;
o Must have “good arguable case” - Rasu Maritima SA v.
Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi
Negara (The Pertamina case) [1977] 3 All ER 324 and
The Niedersachsen [1984] 1 All ER 398
o What this means?
o Not required to show that would obtain a summary
judgement under Rules of Court 2012 but show could
make a more than bare assertion of fact.
o Not necessary to show prima facie case, or establish his
case on balance of probabilities, nor show that he is likely
to win

7. o Serious argument but not necessarily on which the Judge
believes to have a better than 50% chance of success.
iii. P should give some grounds for believing that the D has assets
within the jurisdiction; and
o Evidence – P must give grounds for believing that the D
has assets within the jurisdiction and to assist him the
court has power to order discovery of documents under
O.24 r. 7(1) or interrogatories under O. 26 r. 1(1) to
locate the whereabouts of the D’s assets but not to be
used to discover whether the D has assets within the
jurisdiction
o World Wide Mareva – freezing the D’s overseas assets.
Babanaft Proviso
iv. P should give some grounds for believing that there is a risk of
the assets being removed before the judgment.
v. P must give an undertaking as to damages, in case he fails in his
claim or the injunction turns out to be unjustified –bond/security
 BBMB v. Lorrain Osman [1985] 2 MLJ 236, essential requirements of Mareva,
i. P must show that they have a good arguable case;
ii. P must produce evidence that the D has assets within jurisdiction,
and
iii. There is a risk of the assets being removed before judgment is
satisfied.
Contract of Employment or Personal Services
 General rule – Injunction & SP – x granted:
 1) Enforcement needs constant supervision
 2) Difficult to enforce – involves the loss of mutual trust and confidence
 Exception – Breach of negative agreement & undertakings (‘not to work elsewhere
within specified period of time/ not to engage anyone else’)
 Sec 54 SRA, Sec 20 (1) SRA, Sec 55 SRA

8. 9. Anton Piller Order
 What? – an order from the court which allows the P’s solicitor to enter the D’s
premises for inspecting documents and chattels which are vital for the P’s case.
Photographs or copies can be made or the incriminating materials can be
removed in so far as allowed by the injunction, thus ensuring that evidence is
not destroyed or disposed of, without which it would be impossible for the P to
prove his case.
 To prevent the removal or destruction of evidence before an inter partes
application
 Manufacturing Processes Ltd (1976)
 Extremely strong prima facie case;
 Damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant;
 Clear evidence that the D has in their possession incriminating documents or
things and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material
before any application inter parties can be made.
 Guidelines developed by case laws:
i. The order should normally contain a term that before complying
the D may obtain legal advice, provided this is done forthwith.
ii. Unless this is clearly not appropriate, the execution of orders
must be restricted to working days and normal working hours.
iii. The order may contain an injunction to restrain the D from
informing others of the existence of the order for a period as may
be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, save a
communication with a legal advisor for the purposes of securing
legal advice.
iv. Except where there are good reasons for doing otherwise, the
order should not be executed at business premises save in the
presence of a responsible officer or representative of the
company or trader in question.
v. In general, the orders should expressly provide that, unless this
is seriously impracticable, a detailed list of the items being
removed should be prepared at the premises before they are

9. removed, and the D should be given an opportunity to check the
list at the time.
vi. If the order is to be executed at a private house, and it is likely
that a woman may be in the house alone, the solicitor serving the
order must be or be accompanied by a woman.
 Court could consider an undertaking from the P that:
i. The execution of the order be supervised by a solicitor who is not
from the firm representing the P;
ii. That the solicitor should be suitably experienced in the execution
of APO;
iii. The said solicitor should prepare a written report as to what had
transpired in the execution of the order;
iv. A copy of the report should be given to the D;
v. The P is to present that report at the inter partes hearing
 Yousif v Salama (1980)