Fatin Fatasya Binti Subhan v NZ Frozen Industries Sdn Bhd (JA-22NCvC-63-04/2026)

This is the Plaintiff's application in Enclosure 4 for interlocutory injunctive relief against the Defendant pending the disposal of the present action.

The Plaintiff commenced this action against the Defendant premised principally upon an alleged commercial arrangement embodied in a document referred to as the “Deal Memo”. The Plaintiff contends that pursuant to the Deal Memo, she was appointed as the Defendant’s exclusive sole distributor and had acquired certain contractual and proprietary rights arising therefrom.

The Defendant disputes the entirety of the Plaintiff’s claim. The Defendant not only denies the existence and validity of the rights asserted by the Plaintiff but also alleges that the Deal Memo relied upon by the Plaintiff is fraudulent, contains forged signatures, and was never validly executed by the Defendant.

The Defendant also raised a preliminary objection concerning the continued representation of the Plaintiff by Messrs Norhisham & Co on the ground of an alleged conflict of interest involving the Plaintiff’s solicitor.

Having considered the affidavits filed by both parties, the submissions advanced, the authorities cited by the parties, and the applicable legal principles, this Court dismissed the preliminary objection. However, upon considering the merits of the injunction application, this Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to satisfy the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Accordingly, Enclosure 4 was dismissed with costs in the cause. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Whether Messrs Norhisham & Co ought to be disqualified from acting for the Plaintiff 6. The Defendant raised a preliminary objection concerning the continued representation of the Plaintiff by Messrs Norhisham & Co.

However, this Court notes that the very issue had previously been determined by the High Court of Malaya at Penang, where the Defendant’s application for the disqualification of the Plaintiff’s solicitors was allowed.

The Plaintiff has since appealed against that decision and the appeal remains pending before the Court of Appeal.

In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for this Court to revisit the merits of the Penang High Court’s decision in the present application.

The issue is presently the subject matter of an extant appeal and remains for determination by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, this Court declines to determine the merits of the preliminary objection afresh and proceeds to determine Enclosure 4 on its substantive merits.

Having disposed of the preliminary objection, the issues arising in Enclosure 4 may be distilled into the following three principal issues: Issue (i) : Whether the Plaintiff has established a serious question to be tried. Issue (ii) : Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated a sufficiently strong prima facie basis warranting preservation by way of interlocutory injunction in light of the disputed facts surrounding the Deal Memo. Issue (iii) : Where the balance of convenience and overall justice of the case lie. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT Issue (i) : Whether the Plaintiff has established a serious question to be tried 12. The applicable principles are well settled. The Plaintiff relied on Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor @ Harun bin Abdullah & 2 Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 293 (CA) whilst the Defendant relied upon Golden Plus Holdings Bhd v Teo Sung Ngiap [2019] MLRHU 1646 and Tinta Press Sdn Bhd v Bank Islam (M) Bhd [1986] 1 MLRA 391.

The modern approach requires the Court to first determine whether the applicant has shown that there exists a bona fide serious question to be tried and that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious.

Upon examining the pleadings and affidavits, this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has crossed this relatively low threshold.

The parties are in fundamental disagreement concerning:

the existence and validity of the Deal Memo;

the alleged appointment of the Plaintiff as exclusive distributor;

the authenticity of signatures appearing on the Deal

the legal consequences flowing from the commercial dealings between the parties.

These are plainly matters requiring determination at trial. Accordingly, this Court finds that there exists a serious question to be tried. Issue (ii) : Whether the Plaintiff has established a sufficient basis for interlocutory injunctive relief 17. However, establishing a serious question to be tried does not automatically entitle an applicant to injunctive relief.

The Court must still examine the quality of the Plaintiff’s case and determine whether the interlocutory relief sought is justified in the circumstances.

The Plaintiff's entire application is fundamentally anchored upon the Deal Memo. Yet, the Deal Memo itself constitutes the central controversy in the action.

The Defendant disputes the authenticity of the document, denies its execution, alleges forgery, and challenges the legal validity of the rights claimed by the Plaintiff thereunder. The Defendant further points to numerous factual inconsistencies surrounding the Deal Memo, including disputes concerning signatures, corporate stamps, authority, and surrounding circumstances of execution.

Significantly, the Defendant has produced police reports and contemporaneous denials challenging the authenticity of the document.

The Plaintiff invited this Court to treat the Deal Memo as prima facie valid and to preserve the status quo pending trial.

This Court is unable to accept that submission. To grant the injunction sought would effectively require this Court to proceed upon an assumption that the Deal Memo is genuine and enforceable. Such a finding would necessarily involve making substantive findings on heavily disputed questions of fact which lie at the heart of the action itself.

The Court hearing an interlocutory injunction application is not conducting a mini-trial. This principle is reflected in the authorities relied upon by both parties and is consistent with the caution repeatedly expressed by the courts against determining contested factual disputes at an interlocutory stage.

In this regard, this Court accepts the Defendant’s submission that the present case is materially distinguishable from CCM Chemicals Sdn Bhd v Wan Muhamad Ibrisam Wan Ibrahim [2011] 1LNS 1011, where the surrounding evidence supporting the impugned document was substantially different from the circumstances presently before this Court.

The present case involves numerous disputed factual issues that can only properly be resolved through oral evidence and cross-examination.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a sufficiently clear or compelling basis to justify the extraordinary relief sought at this interlocutory stage. Issue (iii) : Balance of convenience 28. Even if a serious issue to be tried exists, the Court must still consider whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. The Court must evaluate which course carries the lower risk of injustice pending trial.

In the present case, granting the injunction would substantially affect the Defendant’s ability to deal with its business operations and commercial affairs based upon rights that remain vigorously disputed.

Conversely, should the Plaintiff ultimately succeed at trial, the Plaintiff's alleged losses are capable of being compensated by an award of damages. There is presently insufficient evidence demonstrating that damages would be an inadequate remedy.

This Court is further mindful that the relief sought by the Plaintiff substantially overlaps with the substantive relief claimed in the action itself. The effect of granting the injunction may therefore risk conferring upon the Plaintiff a significant portion of the ultimate relief sought before the merits of the action have been adjudicated.

In the circumstances, the balance of convenience favours maintaining the parties in a position where the disputed rights can be fully determined at trial. The lower risk of injustice therefore lies in refusing the injunction and allowing the substantive disputes to proceed to trial.

For the reasons stated above, this Court concludes as follows:

No determination is made by this Court on the merits of the Defendant's preliminary objection concerning the continued representation of the Plaintiff by Messrs Norhisham & Co, the said issue having previously been determined by the High Court of Malaya at Penang and presently being the subject matter of a pending appeal before the Court of Appeal;

the Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of a serious question to be tried;

however, the Plaintiff has failed to establish a sufficient basis for the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief;

the balance of convenience favours refusal of the injunction sought.

Accordingly, this Court orders:

Enclosure 4 is dismissed;

No order is made in respect of the Defendant's preliminary objection concerning the Plaintiff's solicitors in light of the existing decision of the High Court of Malaya at Penang and the pending appeal before the Court of Appeal;

Costs of Enclosure 4 shall be costs in the cause.

All issues relating to the validity, authenticity, enforceability and legal effect of the Deal Memo shall be determined at the trial of this action. DATED 10TH JULY 2026 -SIGNED-MANIRA BINTI MOHD NOR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER CIVIL 4 HIGH COURT JOHOR BAHRU For the Plaintiff Asmawi bin Ismail Messrs Deidra Sharina & Co Seremban For the Defendant Khairul Asri bin Ahmad together with Mohd Sofian Messrs Khairul Asri & Co Johor Bahru