Jung Chanyoung v Kee Cynthia (JA-22IP-1-01/2026)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR DARUL TAZIM, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO:JA-22IP-1-01/2026 BETWEEN

1. JUNG CHANYOUNG (PASSPORT NO. M541Y5563) [in his capacity as a partner to Saranghair Korea

2. SON JAYOUNG (PASSPORT NO. M908A4936) [in her capacity as a partner to Saranghair Korea ….PLAINTIFFS AND

1. KEE CYNTHIA (NRIC NO. 910204-01-5128) [in her capacity as a partner to Saranghair Korea 23/06/2026 15:17:47 JA-22IP-1-01/2026 Kand. 91 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2

2. KIMBERLY ER MIN CHER (NRIC NO. 930605-01-6330) [in her capacity as a partner to Saranghair Korea .… DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT [Enclosure 3-Plaintiffs’ Application for Ex Parte Injunction against the Defendants] INTRODUCTION

1. This Court heard the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Application dated

23.01.2026 (“Enclosure 3”) wherein the Plaintiffs sought various injunctive reliefs against the Defendants pursuant to Order 29 rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”), sections 50, 51 and 53 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (“SRA 1950”), and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The Plaintiffs principally sought orders to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the business operations, management, assets, customers, social media platforms, bank accounts and affairs of Saranghair Korea Concept PLT (“the PLT”) pending the disposal of the main suit. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3

3. The Defendants opposed the application and raised several preliminary objections against the validity and propriety of the Plaintiffs’ supporting affidavits and cause papers.

4. Having considered the affidavits filed by the parties, the written and reply submissions, the bundles of authorities referred to by the parties, and the applicable principles of law, this Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application with costs in the cause. These are the grounds of this Court. BACKGROUND

5. The dispute before this Court arises from a deteriorating business relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in relation to the operation and management of Saranghair Korea Concept PLT.

6. From the affidavit in support affirmed by the Second Plaintiff, Son Jayoung, the Plaintiffs contended that sometime around January 2024, the Defendants proposed for the Plaintiffs to join the PLT as business partners.

7. The Plaintiffs alleged that they subsequently began contributing to the business operations and management of the PLT and **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 invested substantial monies, effort and resources into the business.

8. The Plaintiffs further alleged that disputes later arose concerning management control, partnership interests, access to business premises, operation of the bank accounts, use of intellectual property, and the administration of the business.

9. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants had acted unilaterally and oppressively in excluding the Plaintiffs from the business operations and from access to the affairs of the PLT.

10. On the other hand, the Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs’ allegations were seriously disputed on the facts and that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish any clear legal or equitable right warranting interlocutory injunctive relief.

11. The Defendants further contended that the present dispute was fundamentally a contested partnership and commercial dispute involving highly disputed factual matters which ought properly to be ventilated at the full trial. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5

12. The Defendants also maintained that the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs would effectively amount to granting substantive final relief at the interlocutory stage. PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS Plaintiffs’ Submissions 13. The Plaintiffs submitted that there existed a serious question to be tried within the meaning of the principles laid down in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504.

14. The Plaintiffs argued that they had established their participation and interest in the business operations of the PLT and that the conduct of the Defendants had wrongfully interfered with the Plaintiffs’ rights and interests.

15. The Plaintiffs further contended that damages would not constitute an adequate remedy because the dispute involved ongoing business operations, goodwill, customers, confidential information and commercial reputation.

16. The Plaintiffs also submitted in reply that technical objections raised by the Defendants ought not to defeat substantive justice and relied on Order 2 rule 3 ROC 2012 as well as authorities concerning procedural non-compliance. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Defendants’ Submissions 17. The Defendants raised preliminary objections concerning alleged defects in the Plaintiffs’ affidavits and cause papers, including issues relating to translation, identification particulars and alleged inaccuracies in the supporting documents.

18. However, the Defendants simultaneously submitted that notwithstanding those objections, the substantive merits of the Plaintiffs’ application were fundamentally defective.

19. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish any recognisable enforceable legal right capable of protection by interlocutory injunction.

20. The Defendants further submitted that the alleged partnership arrangements, ownership structure, management rights and financial contributions were all heavily disputed factual matters requiring a full trial.

21. It was further argued that the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs was overly wide, oppressive in nature and would effectively remove the Defendants from the operation and management of the business prior to the determination of the substantive dispute. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

22. This Court finds that the following issues arise for determination:

(ii) Whether the Plaintiffs had satisfied the legal threshold for the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief; and

(iii) Whether the balance of convenience and justice favoured the grant of the injunction sought. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issue (i): Whether the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections Ought to be Allowed 23. This Court first addresses the preliminary objections raised by the Defendants concerning alleged procedural and technical defects in the Plaintiffs’ cause papers and affidavits.

24. The Defendants contended, among others, that there were discrepancies relating to the description of the LLP registration number, the naming of parties, translation issues and alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements under the ROC Plaintiffs. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8

25. Nevertheless, this Court is not persuaded that such defects are fatal in nature so as to warrant the striking out or outright rejection of the Plaintiffs’ application at the threshold stage. In this regard, this Court agrees with the Plaintiffs’ submission that the applicable approach under Order 1A and Order 2 ROC 2012 requires the Court to prioritise substantive justice over mere technical non-compliance.

26. Order 1A ROC 2012 expressly provides that in administering the Rules, the Court shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice and not merely technical non-compliance. Similarly, Order 2 rule 1 ROC 2012 recognises that non-compliance with procedural requirements does not automatically nullify proceedings unless injustice has been occasioned.

27. This Court further notes that the Defendants were fully aware of the nature of the Plaintiffs’ claims and were able to file detailed affidavits in reply, written submissions and reply submissions in opposition to the application. There was therefore no real prejudice occasioned to the Defendants arising from the alleged procedural irregularities.

28. This Court also notes that the disputes raised by the Defendants concerning the factual accuracy of the Plaintiffs’ assertions are matters that properly go towards the substantive merits of the **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 case rather than jurisdictional invalidity. Accordingly, this Court declines to allow the Defendants’ preliminary objections.

29. However, although the preliminary objections are rejected, this Court accepts and adopts the substantive submissions advanced by the Defendants on the merits of the injunction application. Issue (ii): Whether the Plaintiffs Have Satisfied the Legal Threshold for the Grant of Interlocutory Injunctive Relief 30. The applicable principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions are well established and were extensively canvassed by both parties in their respective submissions and bundles of authorities. The Plaintiffs principally relied on the decisions of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504 and Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor @ Harun Bin Abdullah & 2 Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 193, whereas the Defendants relied on, amongst others, Radiant Splendour Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dr Mohammad Hanis Osman [2025] 8 CLJ 310, Roxy Electric Industries (Malaysia) Bhd v Syarikat Nominee Bumiputra Sdn Bhd & Ors [1989] 3 MLJ 231 and Sivaperuman v Heah Seok Yeong Realty Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 150.

31. This Court accepts as trite that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction is fundamentally preservative in nature. It is intended to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 parties’ substantive rights at trial and not to prematurely determine contested rights on affidavit evidence alone.

32. In American Cyanamid Co, Lord Diplock (supra) explained that at the interlocutory stage, the Court is not concerned with finally determining disputed questions of fact or law. Instead, the Court is required to consider whether there exists a serious question to be tried, whether damages constitute an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lies.

33. The same approach was recognised locally in Keet Gerald Francis Noel (supra), where the Court reiterated that an interlocutory injunction is granted to preserve the subject matter pending full determination of the dispute.

34. Having carefully examined the affidavits and documentary exhibits before this Court, this Court finds that the present dispute is not a straightforward case involving a clear and undisputed proprietary or contractual entitlement. Rather, the dispute concerns a highly contentious breakdown in the relationship between business partners involving competing allegations relating to management control, operational authority, financial entitlements, partnership rights, use of the **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 trademark “Saranghair”, handling of the PLT’s funds, and alleged exclusion from participation in the business.

35. The Plaintiffs alleged, amongst others, that the Defendants had acted mala fide in excluding the Plaintiffs from the administration and financial affairs of the PLT, had improperly dealt with partnership funds, and had wrongfully attempted to register the “Saranghair” trademark in the First Defendant’s sole name.

36. The Defendants, however, vigorously disputed those allegations and contended that the Plaintiffs themselves intended to withdraw from the LLP, that the Defendants had continued operating the business in the interests of the PLT, and that the trademark registration was merely an interim arrangement pending assignment to the PLT.

37. This Court finds that the affidavit evidence reveals extensive and substantial factual conflicts which cannot satisfactorily be resolved at this interlocutory stage without the benefit of oral evidence and cross-examination. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12

38. More importantly, this Court finds that several of the injunctive reliefs sought in Enclosure 3 substantially overlap with the substantive and final reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs in the Statement of Claim, particularly the reliefs pleaded in paragraphs 96.2, 96.9, 96.10 and 96.11 of the Statement of Claim.

39. Upon comparison between the Notice of Application and the Statement of Claim, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs are effectively seeking interlocutory orders which would:

40. In substance and practical effect, the interlocutory reliefs sought would confer upon the Plaintiffs substantial portions of the ultimate substantive relief claimed in the action itself. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13

41. This Court accepts that the mere existence of overlap between interlocutory relief and final relief does not automatically bar the grant of an injunction. The injunctive reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs are not merely preservative. Rather, they would materially alter the operational dynamics, management control and financial administration of the PLT before the substantive rights of the parties are adjudicated.

42. This Court is also unable to ignore that the parties’ disputes involve serious questions concerning the existence and scope of the Plaintiffs’ alleged beneficial interests, the parties’ respective rights under the LLP arrangements, the legality of the Plaintiffs’ participation in the business structure, and the true factual circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the parties’ commercial relationship. Such matters are plainly unsuitable for final determination solely on affidavit evidence at an interlocutory stage.

43. This Court further agrees with the Defendants’ reliance on Roxy Electric Industries (Malaysia) Bhd (supra), where judicial caution was emphasised against granting interlocutory orders that effectively determine substantive disputes before trial. Similarly, this Court finds the reasoning in Radiant Splendour Sdn Bhd & Anor (supra) particularly instructive in emphasising that where disputes concern management and operational control of an ongoing business entity amidst heavily disputed factual allegations, the Court must exercise significant restraint before granting interlocutory injunctive relief. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14

44. In the final analysis, this Court is not satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify interlocutory relief which substantially mirrors the substantive relief sought in the action. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the legal threshold necessary for the grant of the interlocutory injunctions sought. Issue (iii): Whether the Balance of Convenience and Justice Favours the Grant of the Injunction 45. Even assuming that there exists a serious question to be tried, this Court is nevertheless not satisfied that the balance of convenience or the balance of justice favours the grant of the injunctions sought by the Plaintiffs. The Court’s task at this stage is to determine which course carries the lower risk of injustice pending the final determination of the action.

46. The Plaintiffs contended that damages would not constitute an adequate remedy because the dispute concerns ongoing business operations, goodwill, customer relationships, management participation, trademark rights and the financial affairs of the PLT. The Plaintiffs further argued that unless injunctive relief is granted, there exists a risk that the Defendants may continue to dissipate or misuse the PLT’s assets and funds, thereby causing irreparable prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ interests. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15

47. This Court has carefully considered those submissions. However, this Court is unable to conclude that the lower risk of injustice lies in granting the extensive interlocutory restraints sought by the Plaintiffs. The present dispute concerns an ongoing commercial enterprise. The PLT continues to operate as a business entity. The parties remain in direct conflict concerning operational authority, financial administration and managerial participation.

48. In such circumstances, the Court must exercise considerable caution before intervening in a manner that may effectively paralyse or restructure the management of the business pending trial. This Court finds that several of the injunctions sought by the Plaintiffs would substantially interfere with the day-to-day management and operation of the PLT and would effectively place substantial operational control in the Plaintiffs’ favour before the merits of the dispute are adjudicated.

49. The practical effect of granting the injunctions would therefore not merely preserve the status quo, but materially alter it. This Court is of the considered view that interlocutory proceedings should not ordinarily be utilised as a mechanism for obtaining, in substance, the fruits of the action before trial. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16

50. This concern becomes even more significant in the present case because the parties’ respective rights and obligations remain heavily disputed and the documentary record before the Court is incomplete and contested. The Court also notes that many of the Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning alleged misappropriation, improper withdrawals, exclusion from management, and misuse of funds remain disputed by the Defendants.

51. The Defendants, for their part, have asserted that the Plaintiffs themselves proposed withdrawal arrangements, that valuation mechanisms existed under the LLP Agreement, and that the trademark issue was capable of subsequent assignment to the PLT. These disputes involve substantial evidential controversies which are more appropriately determined at trial.

52. This Court further finds that many of the alleged losses raised by the Plaintiffs are fundamentally commercial and financial in nature and are therefore, at least in principle, capable of compensation in damages should liability eventually be established.

53. While this Court accepts that certain allegations involving goodwill, business reputation and operational participation may not always be easily quantifiable, the Plaintiffs have **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 nevertheless failed to demonstrate that damages would be wholly inadequate in the factual circumstances of the present case.

54. Conversely, the grant of the injunctions sought may expose the Defendants and the PLT itself to substantial operational disruption and commercial uncertainty pending trial. This Court is therefore satisfied that the lower risk of injustice lies in maintaining the existing position pending full trial rather than granting the far-reaching interlocutory restraints sought by the Plaintiffs.

55. Accordingly, this Court finds that the balance of convenience and the justice of the case do not favour the grant of the injunctions sought by the Plaintiffs. CONCLUSION

56. Having carefully considered the affidavits filed by the parties, the documentary exhibits, the written and reply submissions, the authorities referred to by the parties, as well as the applicable legal principles governing interlocutory injunctions, this Court arrives at the following conclusions. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18

57. Firstly, this Court is not persuaded that the preliminary objections raised by the Defendants warrant the striking out or outright dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ application on technical or procedural grounds alone. Although certain discrepancies and procedural irregularities were identified by the Defendants in relation to the Plaintiffs’ cause papers and affidavits, this Court finds that such matters do not occasion any real prejudice to the Defendants nor do they render the proceedings fatally defective.

58. In this regard, this Court accepts that the overriding objective embodied in Order 1A and Order 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 requires the Court to place substantive justice above mere technical non-compliance, particularly where the opposing party was fully aware of the nature of the claims advanced and had ample opportunity to respond comprehensively to the same. Accordingly, the Defendants’ preliminary objections are dismissed.

59. However, notwithstanding the dismissal of the preliminary objections, this Court accepts the substantive objections advanced by the Defendants against the merits of the Plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory injunctive relief. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19

60. Upon an overall assessment of the affidavit evidence before this Court, this Court finds that the present dispute concerns a heavily contested commercial and partnership dispute involving substantial factual controversies relating to the parties’ respective rights, operational authority, management participation, financial entitlements, trademark ownership, administration of the PLT and the overall breakdown of the parties’ business relationship.

61. The Court further finds that many of these issues are incapable of proper and satisfactory determination solely on affidavit evidence at this interlocutory stage without the benefit of oral evidence and cross-examination during the full trial.

62. More significantly, this Court finds that several of the interlocutory reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs substantially overlap with the substantive and final reliefs pleaded in the Statement of Claim, particularly the reliefs sought in paragraphs 96.2, 96.9,

96.10 and 96.11 thereof.

63. In substance and practical effect, the injunctions sought would materially affect and potentially restructure the operational management, financial administration and control of the PLT prior to the adjudication of the parties’ substantive rights at trial. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20

64. This Court accepts that there may exist exceptional circumstances where interlocutory relief may overlap with substantive final relief. However, to grant such injunction would effectively confer the practical fruits of the action prior to trial, the Court must exercise a significantly higher degree of caution.

65. In the present case, this Court is not satisfied that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of interlocutory relief of such breadth and effect. This Court is likewise not persuaded that the balance of convenience or the balance of justice favours the grant of the injunctions sought.

66. The practical effect of granting the injunctions would not merely preserve the status quo pending trial, but would instead materially alter the operational dynamics and management structure of the PLT in favour of the Plaintiffs before the substantive merits of the dispute are finally determined.

67. In the circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the lower risk of injustice lies in preserving the parties’ positions pending the disposal of the action through a full trial rather than granting the far-reaching interlocutory restraints sought by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the legal requirements necessary for the grant **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 of interlocutory injunctive relief. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Application dated 23.01.2026 (Enclosure 3) is hereby dismissed. Costs shall be costs in the cause. ORDERS OF COURT

68. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: