1) Intro

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the type of a court order that forces a party to
do or restrain from particular acts. It is an unusual remedy that courts apply in special cases
where protection of the status quo or taking some particular action is necessary in order to
avoid possible unfairness. Injunctive relief is a discretionary authority of the court in which
the court, once decided that the applicant's rights are being violated, stables the irreparability
of harms and insufficiency of damages if an injunction weren’t granted over the damages that
allowing an injunction would cause1.

A person who has been provided sufficient notice of an injunction but fails to track
the court's orders given criminal or civil penalties, including potential monetary sanctions
and even sentenced for contempt of court.

An injunction is an equity remedy and as such is obtainable only in cases of in-

There is a balancing test that courts typically employ in determining whether to issue
an injunction. The defendant's rights are weighed (heavily) against the possibility of the
defendant becoming judgment-proof, and the immediacy of the harm allegedly done to the
plaintiff (i.e., how badly does the plaintiff need the injunction). When it is possible, the
defendant must always be put on notice of the injunction hearing, and the duration of the
injunction is typically as temporary as possible. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, plaintiffs
demanding an injunction are required to post a bond.

In Malaysia, the courts derive their jurisdiction to grant injunctions from the statutes,
therefore the remedy of injunctions in Malaysia are essentially the creatures of statute3. The
provisions as to preventive relief is governed by Part III of the Specific Relief Act, 1950. This
Act provides that preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction,

1
Legal Information Institute, “Injunction”, Cornell University Law School <
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction > accessed on 25 January 2016
2
[2007] 2 MLJ. 705
3
Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, “ Interlocutory Injunctions In Malaysia”, International Islamic Univeristy <
http://lib.iium.edu.my/mom2/cm/content/view/view.jsp?key=KqLf0EGzKcupMbbE2AXfweYH14A5gHdF20070
109120018703 > accessed on 26 January 2016
temporary or perpetual. Injunctions may be classified as ‘interim’ (interlocutory/temporary)
or ‘final’(perpetual) in section 50 of Specific Relief Act 1950. S 51 of SRA tell that
Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specified time, limited to last until a
further order, or until the final hearing of the case. A perpetual injunctiona final injunction
where the order is made at the end of the hearing4. By further classification an injunction may
be found to be different types such as mandatory5 injunction compel the performance of the
requisite acts, prohibitory injunctions restrains certain acts, qua timet granted against a
threatened or apprehended wrong which has not been committed and freezing injunctions
(formerly Mareva injunction) granted in certain cases where it is desired to restrain the
dissipation or disposal of assets, Erinford a stay order until the appeal is heard6.

The jurisdiction to grant injunctions in Malaysia is vested exclusively with the High
Courts. Section 69 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948, gives this exclusivity where
subordinate courts are prevented from granting reliefs in the nature of an injunction. An
injunction would similarly be refused if the applicant was seeking to enforce the criminal law
by way of a civil action. An injunction also cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a
contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced; Vethanayagam v
Karuppiah & Ors7 by Raja Azlan Shah.

Apart from all the other injunctions, Anton Piller Order is another type of injunction.
Anton Piller Order is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize
evidence without prior warning. The purpose of this order is to prevent the removal or
destruction of evidence before an inter partes application. The order is named after the 1975
English case of Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited8. Lord Denning in this
case stated that this order is not a search warrant that lets Plaintiff’s solicitor or anyone else to
merely enter a premise either by breaking the door or in any mode without Defendant’s will.
It just authorises entry and inspection by the permission of the Defendants. The Plaintiff must
get the Defendant's permission. It brings pressure on the Defendants to give permission. The
result that if he does not give permission, he is guilty of contempt of Court.

Anton Piller orders are only issued exceptionally and according to the three-step test
(conditions) set out by Ormrod LJ in Anton Piller: (i) extremely strong prima facie case
4
S 52 of Specific Relief Act 1950
5
S 53 of Specific Relief Act 1950
6
Hudson, A., 2007. Equity and Trusts. 5th ed. Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish
7
[1968] 1 MLJ 283
8
[1976] 1 All ER 405
against the D, (ii) damage, potential or actual to the P is great if the order is not granted, (iii)
clear evidence that the D has in his possession incriminating documents and real possibility
that the D may destroy such incriminating material before any application inter partes can be
heard. Applicant required to make a full and frank disclosure.

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.

There are judicially required conditions stated in order to enter a premise under this
Anton Pillar Order. Firstly, the order should have obtained legal advice before complying the
defendant. Secondly, the execution of orders must be restricted to working days and normal
working hours. Thirdly, order may contain an injunction to prohibit defendant from
informing others about the order for confidential and document safety purpose. Fourthly,
Order should not be executed at business premises9. Fifthly, detailed list of the items being
removed should be prepared at the premises. Sixth, if order executed at a private house, and
there is any women in house and alone, solicitor serving the order must be or must be
accompanied by a female officer. And finally, relating to this order, solicitor supervising it
should not be from the same firm, must be experienced in execution of APO, there must be a
written report by the said solicitor of what transpired in the order, copy of report be given to
defendant, plaintiff to present the report at inter partes hearing.

9
Mohsin Hingun & Wan Azlan Ahmad, Equity & Trusts in Malaysia (Second Edition) (Sweet & Maxwell
Asia, second edition 2005)