![[Type here] ilyana iskandar [Type here]
KEET GERALD FRANCIS NOEL JOHN V MOHD NOOR @ HARUN BIN ABDULLAH
appeal against the decision of Hc setting aside an injunction obtained ex parte by the
appellant (pf) against respondents (df)
A Judge hearing an application for an interlocutory injunction should undertake an
inquiry along the following lines:
o firstly, he must ask himself whether the totality of the facts presented before him
discloses a bona fide serious issue to be tried; (cause of action or not?)
Bears in mind that pleadings and evidence are incomplete at that stage.
Above all, he must refrain from making any determination on the merits of
the claim or any defence to it.
Sufficient if he identifies with precision the issues raised on the joinder
and decides whether these are serious enough to merit a trial.
If no serious question disclosed, no injunction.
If he find serious question to be tried, move to the next step.
o having found that an issue has been disclosed that requires further investigation,
he must consider where the justice of the case lies.
In making his assessment, he must take into account all relevant matters,
including the practical realities of the case; (not guaranteed to get
injunction but. Court must look at the justice. The effect of grant & not
granting the injunction or looks at if there any worse scenario that will
happen if grant or not grant the injunction)
Must weigh the harm that the injunction would produce by its grant
against the harm that would result from its refusal.
Take into account the relative financial standing of the litigants before the
judege. Plaintiff is in financial ability to meet his undertaking in damages.
If df would suffer suffer the greater injustice by the grant of an injunction,
judge must refuse the application.
Take into account the plaintiff’s ability to meet his undertaking in damages
should the suit fail, and may require the the plaintiff to secure his
undertaking.
Balance of convenience
American Cynamide
o the Judge must have in the forefront of his mind that the remedy that he is asked to
administer is discretionary, intended to produce a just result for the period between
the date of the application and the trial proper and intended to maintain the status
quo. ( court discreation to grant the injunction. If yes, the court will do so in order to
preserve the status quo. If beyond that, x grant the injunction)
to preserve the state of affairs existing prior to the application for the
injunction
x be granted if damages are adequate remedies
O29, r (1) (2A) – this case discuss all these element in full.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/twolandmarkcaseoninjunction-180227030539/85/Two-land-mark-case-on-injunction-1-320.jpg)
Two land mark case on injunction
- 1. [Type here] ilyana iskandar [Type here] KEET GERALD FRANCIS NOEL JOHN V MOHD NOOR @ HARUN BIN ABDULLAH appeal against the decision of Hc setting aside an injunction obtained ex parte by the appellant (pf) against respondents (df) A Judge hearing an application for an interlocutory injunction should undertake an inquiry along the following lines: o firstly, he must ask himself whether the totality of the facts presented before him discloses a bona fide serious issue to be tried; (cause of action or not?) Bears in mind that pleadings and evidence are incomplete at that stage. Above all, he must refrain from making any determination on the merits of the claim or any defence to it. Sufficient if he identifies with precision the issues raised on the joinder and decides whether these are serious enough to merit a trial. If no serious question disclosed, no injunction. If he find serious question to be tried, move to the next step. o having found that an issue has been disclosed that requires further investigation, he must consider where the justice of the case lies. In making his assessment, he must take into account all relevant matters, including the practical realities of the case; (not guaranteed to get injunction but. Court must look at the justice. The effect of grant & not granting the injunction or looks at if there any worse scenario that will happen if grant or not grant the injunction) Must weigh the harm that the injunction would produce by its grant against the harm that would result from its refusal. Take into account the relative financial standing of the litigants before the judege. Plaintiff is in financial ability to meet his undertaking in damages. If df would suffer suffer the greater injustice by the grant of an injunction, judge must refuse the application. Take into account the plaintiff’s ability to meet his undertaking in damages should the suit fail, and may require the the plaintiff to secure his undertaking. Balance of convenience American Cynamide o the Judge must have in the forefront of his mind that the remedy that he is asked to administer is discretionary, intended to produce a just result for the period between the date of the application and the trial proper and intended to maintain the status quo. ( court discreation to grant the injunction. If yes, the court will do so in order to preserve the status quo. If beyond that, x grant the injunction) to preserve the state of affairs existing prior to the application for the injunction x be granted if damages are adequate remedies O29, r (1) (2A) – this case discuss all these element in full.