Champsurf Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Rainbow Paradise Premium Resort Sdn Bhd (PA-22NCvC-131-08/2025)

SATISHCHANDRE S/O PRAVINCHANDRE (PASSPORT SINGAPURA NO: K2279146D) ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGEMENT Introduction

This appeal arises from this Court's decision on 31 March 2026 dismissing the Plaintiff's application in Enclosure 57 for interlocutory injunctive relief against the Defendants.

The underlying dispute concerns the Plaintiff's purported termination of an Operations Management Agreement under which the First Defendant had been appointed to operate and manage the hotel known as Rainbow Paradise Beach Resort for a term of three years commencing from 1 January 2025. The Plaintiff alleges various breaches on the part of the First Defendant, including non-payment of arrears, management fees, utilities and other outgoings. The Defendants, however, deny the alleged breaches and dispute the validity of the termination.

Following the filing of the main suit in August 2025, the Defendants filed Enclosure 14 together with an affidavit in support in Enclosure 15 and a Certificate of Urgency in Enclosure 16, seeking injunctive relief against the Plaintiff.

On 24 November 2025, this Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in favour of the Defendants pursuant to Enclosure 14. However, upon the inter partes hearing on 1 December 2025, this Court declined to grant the injunction sought by the Defendants and instead allowed the Plaintiff's application in Enclosure 23 to set aside the ex parte injunction granted earlier.

Dissatisfied with those decisions, the Defendants filed two Notices of Appeal to the Court of Appeal, namely Enclosures 44 and 45. The grounds of judgment delivered by this Court in dismissing Enclosure 14 and allowing Enclosure 23 are available at Champsurf Sdn Bhd v Rainbow Paradise Premium Resort Sdn Bhd & Anor [2026] AMEJ 0132; [2026] CLJU 130; [2026] MLJU 156; [2026] MLRHU 112.

Pending the hearing of the appeals in Enclosures 44 and 45, the Defendants filed Enclosure 48 on 16 December 2025 seeking what was described as an Erinford injunction.

On 9 January 2026, the Plaintiff in turn filed Enclosure 57 seeking interlocutory injunctive relief against the Defendants.

On 31 March 2026, this Court heard both Enclosures 48 and 57. After hearing extensive submissions from learned counsel for both parties, this Court dismissed both applications.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed the present appeal against this Court's decision dismissing Enclosure 57.

These are the grounds of judgment of this Court in respect of the dismissal of Enclosure 57. The Injunctive Reliefs Sought in Enclosure 57

By Enclosure 57, the Plaintiff sought interlocutory prohibitory injunctions restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves, their directors, officers, servants, agents or otherwise, from:

(a) remaining upon or trespassing on the lands comprised in Geran No:28215 (Lot No:960), Geran No:9368 (Lot No: 3612) and Geran No: 9369 (Lot No: 3613), all situated in Daerah Timur Laut, Bandar Tanjung Bungah, Pulau Pinang, together with the hotel known as Rainbow Paradise Beach Resort situated thereon, including the management office, front office, function rooms and Planter's Lounge;

(b) interfering with the Plaintiff's trade and business operations at the Hotel; and

(c) using or retaining the Plaintiff's operational assets, including keys, access cards, vehicles and software systems, including Adam lockset credentials, pending the disposal of the action. The Plaintiff's Contentions

The Plaintiff contended that it had been the exclusive operator of the Hotel since 2006 pursuant to an assignment from Rainbow Paradise Beach Resort Berhad. According to the Plaintiff, although it possessed no proprietary interest in the Hotel or the individual units, it remained the lawful operator of the Hotel.

The Plaintiff further contended that pursuant to the Operations Management Agreement, the First Defendant was merely granted a contractual licence to operate the Hotel commencing from 1 January 2025, and not any tenancy or lease conferring possessory rights.

The Plaintiff alleged that the First Defendant had failed to make payments due under the Operations Management Agreement from the outset, resulting in the Plaintiff issuing a termination notice dated 10 July 2025. Despite the termination, the Defendants continued to remain in occupation of the Hotel and continued utilising the Plaintiff's operational systems and assets.

The Plaintiff additionally asserted that the First Defendant had separately occupied Planter's Lounge pursuant to a tenancy agreement under which no rental had been paid. The tenancy was said to have been terminated on 12 July 2025, although the Defendants allegedly refused to vacate the premises.

Relying on, inter alia, Tee Than Song v Caltex Oil Malaysia Ltd [1970] 1 MLJ 68; [1969] 1 LNS 187; [1969] 1 MLRA 199 and MHM Trend Station Sdn Bhd v Petronas Dagangan Bhd [2011] 4 MLJ 95; [2009] 1 LNS 437; [2009] 5 MLRA 278, the Plaintiff submitted that a licensee whose licence had been terminated possessed no right to remain in occupation and effectively became a trespasser.

The Plaintiff further submitted that the Court ought not preserve unlawful occupation on equitable principles and that interlocutory injunctions are routinely granted to restrain trespass and interference pending trial.

The Plaintiff contended that the principles in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah [1995] 1 MLJ 193; [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 2 AMR 1859; [1994] 1 MLRA 454 were satisfied, namely:

(a) there existed serious issues to be tried concerning breaches of the Operations Management Agreement, trespass, interference with hotel operations and wrongful retention of operational assets;

(b) damages would not constitute an adequate remedy as the Plaintiff had allegedly been deprived of its operational revenue and control of the Hotel's operational systems; and

(c) the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff as the licensor and exclusive operator who had allegedly received no payment under the Operations Management Agreement.

The Plaintiff also relied on ACJ Plus Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Rahman Brothers Perumahan Sdn Bhd [2024] MLJU 1216; [2024] AMEJ 1218; [2024] CLJU 1174; [2024] MLRHU 938 and Luxury Connection Sdn Bhd v Matrix Parking Solution Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 1185; [2018] 1 LNS 1242; [2018] MLRHU 955. The Defendants' Contentions

The Defendants opposed Enclosure 57 principally on the basis that the relief sought, though framed as prohibitory injunctions, was in substance a mandatory injunction amounting to a summary eviction of the Defendants from the Hotel.

The Defendants argued that the effect of the orders sought would be to dispossess the Defendants of control and management of the Hotel and to grant the Plaintiff substantially the very final relief sought in the main action.

The Defendants submitted that it is well established that a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage will only be granted in exceptional circumstances and where a strong and unusually clear case has been demonstrated. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff had failed to satisfy that elevated threshold.

The Defendants further contended that this Court had already held, in the earlier proceedings concerning Enclosure 14, that serious issues existed to be tried concerning the parties' respective rights and entitlement to possession, control and management of the Hotel.

In particular, the Defendants relied on this Court's earlier observations that preserving the status quo did not entail maintaining the ex parte injunction because such an order would effectively determine the very issues to be tried in the action.

The Defendants submitted that there had been no judicial determination that the Defendants were mere licensees or trespassers and that the validity of the Plaintiff's purported termination of the Operations Management Agreement remained very much in dispute and could only properly be determined at trial.

The Defendants therefore argued that the Plaintiff was impermissibly attempting, through Enclosure 57, to circumvent the earlier findings of this Court and to obtain summary possession and control of the Hotel prior to trial.

The Defendants also contended that the Plaintiff's conduct amounted to impermissible self-help and that the Plaintiff had not come before the Court with clean hands.

In support of their submissions, the Defendants relied on, inter alia, HTMALTEC Consultants Sdn Bhd v Choy Kwai Ying [2026] MLJU 276; [2026] AMEJ 0246; [2026] CLJU 209; [2026] MLRHU 190, Sivaperuman v Heah Seok Yeong Realty Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 150; [1978] 1 MLRA 263; [1978] 1 LNS 184, RCA Sdn Bhd v Pekerja-Pekerja RCA Sdn Bhd & Ors [1991] 1 MLJ 309; [1990] 2 MLRA 63; [1991] 1 CLJ 19, Sing Foong Niap Sdn Bhd v In Property Management Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 4951; [2025] AMEJ 3874; [2025] MLRHU 3456; [2025] CLJU 3930 and Holiday Inns Inc & Anor v Hotel Enterprises Ltd [1976] 1 MLJ 213; [1975] 1 MLRH 502; [1975] 1 LNS 59. This Court's Decision

This Court has carefully considered the affidavits filed, the extensive submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, and the authorities relied upon.

At the outset, this Court records its appreciation to learned counsel for their detailed and well-researched submissions, which were of considerable assistance to the Court.

In this Court's judgment, the disputes between the parties are substantial, multifaceted and heavily contested. The issues raised concern, among others, the proper construction of the Operations Management Agreement, the nature of the Defendants' rights of occupation and management, the validity of the Plaintiff's purported termination of the Operations Management Agreement, and the parties' respective entitlement to possession and control of the Hotel.

These are plainly matters that ought properly to be determined at a full trial where oral evidence may be tested and findings of fact appropriately made.

While this Court accepted that the Plaintiff had satisfied the threshold requirement of establishing that there exists a serious question to be tried, that alone is not determinative of whether interlocutory injunctive relief ought to be granted.

In the present case, this Court is not satisfied that damages would be an inadequate remedy for the Plaintiff pending the disposal of the action.

Further, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought by the Plaintiff, though framed as prohibitory in nature, would in substance have the practical effect of displacing the Defendants from possession, control and management of the Hotel pending trial.

To grant such relief at this interlocutory stage would effectively pre-empt the very issues which fall to be determined at trial, particularly the questions concerning the validity of the termination of the Operations Management Agreement and the parties' respective rights to possession and management of the Hotel.

This Court is also of the view that the balance of convenience favoured the preservation of the present state of affairs pending the disposal of the action.

In the circumstances, this Court finds no basis to grant the interlocutory injunctions sought by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 57. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Enclosure 57 is dismissed.

The parties shall proceed to trial where the disputed factual and legal issues may be properly adjudicated upon on the basis of full evidence. 2 June 2026 (CHOONG YEOW CHOY) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI 2 GEORGETOWN, PULAU PINANG Counsel: For the Plaintiffs : Lim Choon Khim David Yii Wong Xian Zheng (Wong Xian Zheng & Co) For the Defendants Karin Lim Ai Ching Suppiah Arumugam Cyrus Lim Kia Chun (Yeoh, Lim & Partners)