Presgo Gateways Sdn. Bhd. v Aim-Force Software Sdn. Bhd. (WA-22NCC-122-02/2026)

The Plaintiff ("P") filed a notice of application dated 23.2.2026 in Enclosure 3 for an interlocutory injunction against the Defendant ("D"). Enclosure 3 is made under Order 29 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012.

On 25.2.2026, I granted an ex parte interim injunction in the following terms ("ex parte injunction order") : "an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendant from destroying and / or deleting the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com. system logs and / or any part thereof pending the full and final disposal of the suit herein;"

At the return date on 11.3.2026, I granted an ad interim injunction, pending the exchange of affidavits and written submissions for the hearing of Enclosure 3.

At the inter partes hearing on 29.5.2026, I dismissed Enclosure 3. Here are my reasons. The Plaintiff's case

P's case is this.

P contracted with D via an agreement titled Agreement e-Enforcement dated 21.6.2016 ("2016 agreement"). Pursuant to the 2016 agreement, D sold to P its e - Enforcement $ ^{\mathrm{TM}} $ software, which was to be tailored for P's use in the management of the provision of parking services to the public for the car park lots administered by the Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru ("MBJB"). The tailored system, known as MBJB Spot System, included the parking app known as MBJB Spot Application.

P contends that under the 2016 agreement, D also agreed and was obliged to store the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application, in a cloud server hosted by a third - party. The cloud server was Microsoft Azure Cloud, and the particular sub - account under D's master account with Microsoft Azure Cloud for this purpose was identified as ACC - MBJB SPOT (later, adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com).

P further contends that under the agreement titled Software and Maintenance Agreement between the parties dated 1.3.2023 ("2023 agreement"), P was entitled to full access to the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account to view the system logs.

When D refused to give such full access to P as demanded, P terminated the 2023 Agreement by way of a letter dated 28.10.2025. Thereafter, P commenced this suit and obtained the ex parte injunction order to essentially compel D to continue to maintain the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account to preserve the system logs. The Defendant's case

D's case is this.

The 2016 agreement speaks for itself. It has no provision for the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application in a cloud server hosted by a third - party. It was only for the sale and purchase of the Items (as defined therein) i.e. the MBJB Spot System, which included the development of the parking app known as MBJB Spot Application for P's use.

Further to the 2016 agreement and following discussions between the parties, P agreed with D to have D store and manage the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application in a cloud server hosted by a third - party, specifically on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud ("data management contract"). To do so, D created a sub - account under its master account with Microsoft Azure Cloud and named it ACC - MBJB SPOT (later, adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com) to distinguish and separate it from other sub - accounts created by D for D's other customers.

Although running in tandem, the data management contract is totally separate and distinct from the 2016 agreement. Access to the particular ACC - MBJB SPOT sub - account (later, adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com) was through D's main account with Microsoft Azure Cloud. Only D, as the administrator and owner of the main account and all the sub - accounts thereunder, had access to the same.

There is no provision in the data management contract (or indeed, the 2016 agreement or the 2023 agreement) which allows P full access to D's master account or sub - account(s) with Microsoft Azure Cloud.

D rightfully rejected P's insistence for full access to the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account to view the system logs. Allowing P full access would expose D's considerable confidential and proprietary business logic therein used by them to process the captured data.

To compound matters, P had not been paying D for services rendered under the data management contract since July 2025.

P's termination of the 2023 agreement, on the basis that it was not allowed full access to the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account, was therefore unlawful.

Hence, P had no basis to apply for the ex parte injunction order, and no basis to apply for the injunctive relief under Enclosure 3 on an inter partes basis.

Furthermore, in applying for the ex parte injunction order, P has failed to disclose a number of considerably relevant facts that would have had a material bearing to the court's consideration of the merits. On that basis, D filed a notice of application dated 27.3.2026 in Enclosure 11 to set aside the ex parte injunction order. Background facts

D is a IT solution provider. D offers software solutions and tailor made systems for both the government and private sector, one of which is known as e-Enforcement $ ^{TM} $ solutions. The e-Enforcement $ ^{TM} $ solutions cater for car park management, including enforcement and compound management system, mobile handheld enforcement system, mobile handheld over - parking notice system, computerised parking coupon selling and management system, and mobile handheld receipting system.

P had been appointed by the MBJB as its agent to assist in the management of the provision of parking services to the public for the car park lots administered by MBJB. Thus, the parties entered into the 2016 agreement, by which P purchased from D the e - Enforcement $ ^{\mathrm{TM}} $ software, which was to be tailored for P's use and known as MBJB Spot System. The MBJB Spot System included the parking app known as MBJB Spot Application. P also purchased from D hardware used to run the D's e - Enforcement $ ^{\mathrm{TM}} $ software, including 150 units of AF - PM 80 rugged smartphones, 150 units of portable compound printer AF - I350 and 150 units of handheld and portable printer carrying case.

As a purchaser of D's e - Enforcement $ ^{\mathrm {T M}} $ software and as well the hardware related to its use, P had the option of either setting up its own server to store the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application, or, in a cloud server hosted by a third - party.

Further to the 2016 agreement and following discussions between the parties, P decided to have the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application stored and managed in a cloud server hosted by a third party, so as to cater for an anticipated surge in data when user numbers of the MBJB Spot Application increase.

Consequently, D suggested to P that D would be able to do so using D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud. At that time, D had a subscription with Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, Singapore ("Microsoft Singapore") for the said Microsoft Azure Cloud account.

D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud was D's master account. D would create a sub - account under this master account to store and manage data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application.

P decided to avail itself of such service from D. It was agreed between the parties that:

the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application would be stored and managed by D on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud; and

D would bill P the amount charged to D by Microsoft Singapore for the use of D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud in storing and managing the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application, i.e. usage of the particular sub - account, plus RM 1,000 as D's service charge.

P therefore contracted with D to have D store and manage the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud i.e. the data management contract since the year 2016, separate and distinct from the 2016 agreement. The sub - account in question used by D to store and manage the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application was named by D as ACC - MBJB SPOT (later, adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com).

P however contends that by the terms of the 2016 agreement, D was responsible for recommending the location for the MBJB Spot System at an installation site and / or also to install / host the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot System for P.

At this juncture, it might be noted that the terms 'MBJB Spot System' and 'MBJB Spot Application' appear to have been conflated by both parties. The MBJB Spot System (or just 'System') refers to the complete system, which includes the program and web support backend system. Whereas the MBJB Spot Application is the parking app and is part of the MBJB Spot System. The data in question is from the use of the MBJB Spot Application, and not the MBJB Spot System as such.

The question that arises here is this - "Did P contract with D to have D store and manage the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud i.e. the data management contract since the year 2016, separate and distinct from the 2016 agreement (as claimed by D), or did D do so under the 2016 agreement (as claimed by P)?"

My answer is the former. Here is my explanation.

The purpose of the 2016 agreement is set out at clause 2.1 thereof as follows: "2.1 Aim - Force hereby agrees to sell and Prego agrees to purchase the Items upon the terms and subject to the conditions herein appearing."

'Items' is defined at clause 1.1 of the 2016 agreement as follows: "Items' means the supply, delivery, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance (during warranty period) of mobile computer, mobile printer, handheld enforcement system, back office enforcement system, Middleware system and all the items as listed out in Appendix A;"

Contrary to P's claim, there is nothing in the 2016 agreement which provides for D to be responsible for recommending to P the location for the MBJB Spot Application at an installation site, much less store and manage the data arising from the use of the same.

To underscore this, I refer to P's own affidavits. At paragraph 10 of P's affidavit in support affirmed on 23.2.2026 (Enclosure 4), P averred : "10) By the terms of the 2016 Agreement, the Defendant's role was limited to that of a technical service provider responsible for :-

1 maintenance of the MBJB Spot System (Clauses 8, 10.1);

2 provision of technical support and system operations (Clause 9.2);

3 recommending the location for the MBJB Spot System at an installation site [Clause ?]."

It is no coincidence that the clause in the 2016 agreement which supposedly provides for D to be responsible for recommending the location for the 'MBJB Spot System' (should perhaps be MBJB Spot Application) at an installation site, is conspicuously missing from paragraph 10.3 of Enclosure 4. In contrast, P was able state the clauses from the 2016 agreement, at paragraphs 10.1.and 10.2 of Enclosure 4, for other matters. The reason is because there is no such provision in the 2016 agreement pertaining to the averment in paragraph 10.3 of Enclosure 4 above.

At paragraph 15 of P's affidavit in reply affirmed on 17.4.2026 (Enclosure 15), P averred : "15) Paragraph 21 and 22 of the Defendant's Affidavit is admitted and the Plaintiff in this case, chose the option of Microsoft as the Third Party hosting the cloud server for the Plaintiff and the Defendant provided maintenance service only, as per clause 8.2.1 of the 2016 Agreement for a fee."

Clause 8.2.1 of the 2016 agreement, cited by P above, reads: "8.2.1 Aim - Force agrees to provide the availability of maintenance service to Presgo for the Items while they are located at the Installation Site the Maintenance Time. Aim - Force will undertake to maintain and service the Items, to restore the machine to good working order. Consumable or expendable parts such as handheld battery, printer battery and thermal paper rolls shall remain the responsibility Presgo."

Clause 8.2.1 of the 2016 agreement provides for the maintenance service for the Items only. It does not deal with the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application. In any event, maintenance of the MBJB Spot Application i.e. making sure that it is working properly and resolving any issues pertaining to it that may arise, is different from the storing and managing of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application.

One further fact which proves that the 2016 agreement does not provide for D being responsible for recommending the location for the MBJB Spot Application at an installation site, much less to store and manage the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot System for P, is the billing with regard to the same.

If indeed the installation/ hosting of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application for P is under the 2016 agreement, then, the billing for the same would naturally be provided therein. Yet, the 2016 agreement only provides for payment of a fixed sum of RM 63,193.89 by way of 60 monthly instalments by P to D for the right to use the Items. This is reflected in clause 3.1 of the 2016 agreement, which reads: "3.1 In consideration of the grant of the right to use the Items to be provided by the Aim - Force in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Presgo agrees to pay periodic charges to Aim - Force in total of sixty (60) periodic payments during the term of this Agreement with the amount of RM 63,193.89 (inclusive 6% GST) per month until end of the contract. (Refer Appendix B)."

It is undisputed that:

D's invoices to P under the 2016 agreement were separate from D's invoices to P for the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud;

D's invoices to P under the 2016 agreement were for a fixed amount of RM 63,193.89 each month, as per clause 3.1 and Appendix B therein;

In contrast, D's invoices to P for the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud would vary monthly depending on the amount of storage used; and

P has been making payments to D since the year 2016 (until it stopped in July 2025) for the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud, separately and over and above the payments under clause 3.1 of the 2016 agreement.

From the above, I conclude that:

D was not responsible under the 2016 agreement for recommending the location for the MBJB Spot Application at an installation site and / or install / host the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application for P; and

P contracted with D to have D store and manage the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud since the year 2016, i.e. the data management contract, separate and distinct from the 2016 agreement.

The data management contract, entered into by both parties verbally and by conduct, is for the storage and management of data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application, as well as D's provision of proprietary expertise to process and ensure the security of the same. It does not confer on P a right to access and scrutinize how D carries out such processes, as this would go beyond the scope of the data management contract.

Subsequent to the 2016 agreement and the data management contract, the parties entered into two other agreements. Namely a Software Maintenance Agreement dated 1.1.2022 ("2022 agreement") and another Software Maintenance Agreement dated 1.3.2023 i.e. the 2023 agreement. The 2023 agreement

Pursuant to clause 10.1 of the 2023 agreement, the 2016 agreement and the 2022 agreement were superseded by the 2023 agreement, and ceased to be effective from the date of the 2023 agreement i.e. 1.3.2023.

The purpose of the 2023 agreement was essentially to have D upgrade the MBJB Spot Application and the MBJB Spot System as a whole (see recitals A and C of the 2023 agreement).

Just like the 2016 agreement, there is no provision in the 2023 agreement which provides for the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud.

Also just like the 2016 agreement, there is no provision in the 2023 agreement for the billing for the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud. The billing for services under the 2023 agreement ("RM 1.00 (excluding 6 % sales and service tax) on every reload amount on parking air time using the Application”), is separate and distinct from the billing for the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud i.e. the data management contract. The Plaintiff's request for full access to the adminpregogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account

On 14.4.2025, for the first time since D commenced storing and managing the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud in the year 2016, P requested for full access to D's adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account, and required all credentials from D in order to do so.

It must be stressed that P did not just want to see the data (or even the system logs) in D's adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account with Microsoft Azure Cloud. Instead, P wanted all the login credentials to D's adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account with Microsoft Azure Cloud in order to access the same. The reason given was that P wanted to understand the 'architecture' of the MBJB Spot server and to verify the integrity of the data therein.

D responded by way of a letter dated 21.4.2025 that it could not do so. Allowing P such access would expose confidential information to P, as well potentially cause data errors and put the system at risk.

On 2.7.2025, D once again explained why it could not give such access to P. D proposed that it exports all the data pertaining to MBJB Spot Application to P within three working days from P's acceptance of the proposal. This is in addition to the fact that P had access to all the data in D's ACC - MBJB SPOT sub - account (later, adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account) in the form of reports which P could generate via the web support system created specifically by D for P.

On 7.7.2025, D provided P with all the data in the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account by way of a google drive link.

On 28.10.2025, P terminated the 2023 agreement. A couple of things are noteworthy from the letter of termination:

at paragraph 4, it is stated that "This termination is issued on the grounds (among others) of Aim - Force's non - compliance and failure to provide Presgo with full and unobstructed access to its data, which constitutes a material and fundamental breach of the Agreement as stated in our letter dated 13 October 2025 and other correspondences."; and

at paragraph 3, it is stated that "Accordingly, Aim - Force shall deactivate all MBJB Spot services and related cloud instances on 1 November 2025 at 0000 hours".

D responded by way of a letter dated 30.10.2025 and put on record that it did not commit any breach of the 2023 agreement, and that P's termination of the same was unlawful. Alleged serious issue to be tried

P has said (at paragraph 48.1 of its affidavit of support in Enclosure 4) that the serious issue to be tried is "whether P has the right to access to the Presgo domain system logs".

By "Presgo domain system logs", P means the system logs generated by Microsoft Azure Cloud in relation to the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application stored and managed on D's adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account with Microsoft Azure Cloud. That is to say, the issue P claims ought to be tried is whether it has the right to access D's adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account with Microsoft Azure Cloud.

It seems to me that P has no right to do so. As discussed earlier, there is no provision in the 2016 agreement or the 2023 agreement which provides for the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's account with Microsoft Azure Cloud, much less access to the particular adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account.

The account with Microsoft Azure Cloud belongs to D, as do all the sub - accounts created thereunder. It is D who subscribed for the same with Microsoft Singapore, and subsequently, with Tec D Distribution (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. P therefore has no right to access D's main account with Microsoft Azure Cloud, or the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account.

As the account owner, D is responsible for the security and data in all the sub - accounts under D's main account with Microsoft Azure Cloud. Giving P full access to the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub account, would mean giving P administrative access to D's main account with Microsoft Azure Cloud.

That is to say, P would not only have administrative rights pertaining to the said sub - account (which it cannot have by virtue of the fact that P is neither the owner or administrator of the said sub - account), P would also have access to and administrative rights to the other sub - accounts created by D under the main account in relation to D's other customers.

D says that it did not just store data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's ACC - MBJB SPOT sub - account (later, adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account) with Microsoft Azure Cloud. D says that it developed considerable confidential and proprietary business logic and used them to process the captured data. This included transforming raw data into meaningful outputs, analytics and operational reports required by P.

Basically, D says that it developed and used confidential and proprietary rules, workflows, algorithms, and procedures to handle the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application. And made it comprehensible and understandable in the form of reports (which were accessible to P via the web support system created specifically by D for P).

According to D, that is the reason why P wants full access to the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account. P wants to know D's confidential and proprietary business logic (in anticipation of moving the whole MBJB Spot System to another service provider, which it has since done). This is demonstrated by the Freudian slip in P's letter dated 14.4.2025 (reproduced below), wherein P admitted it wanted to understand the whole 'architecture' of the server.

According to D, P wanted all login credentials to enable full access to the cloud application in order to understand the whole architecture of the current MBJB Spot server. That is to say, P wanted full access to the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account (or Presgo Domain account, as P calls it). It was not limited to the system logs. Indeed, 'system logs' was not even mentioned in P's 14.4.2025 letter.

This is reinforced by P's averment at paragraph 30 of its affidavit in support (Enclosure 4), as follows: "28) Sometime in February 2025, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant was teaming up with a company called ITMAX System Berhad to develop smart parking solutions. 29) ITMAX System Berhad is the majority shareholder of Southmax Sdn Bhd which is a competitor to the Plaintiff in the smart parking business in Johor. 30) In view of the Defendant's collaboration with ITMAX System Berhad, the Plaintiff on 14-04-2025, wrote to the Defendant requesting for full access to the MBJB Spot System housed in the Presgo Domain in order to verify the status and integrity of the data stored in the said Presgo Domain and to ensure the smooth operation and management of the MBJB Spot System."

It would appear from paragraph 20 of its affidavit in support (Enclosure 4) that P is relying on clauses 6.3 (a) and (b) of the 2023 agreement, for the right to fully access the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account. P's reliance on those clauses is misplaced.

First and foremost, it is reiterated that the 2023 agreement is separate and distinct from the contract between P and D to have D store and manage the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's ACC - MBJB SPOT sub - account (later, adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account) with Microsoft Azure Cloud i.e. the data management contract.

Just like the 2016 agreement, the 2023 agreement makes no mention of the storage and management of data in the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com or more specifically, access to it. Using the 2023 agreement to claim for an alleged right to fully access the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account, is therefore misconceived.

In any event, clause 6.3 (a) of the 2023 agreement specifically provides that the 'Software, System and the Upgraded System' belongs to D. Whereas the 'Customer Materials' i.e. the materials provided by P in respect of the 'Services' and the 'Application' under the 2023 agreement shall remain vested with P. Not only is it clear that the system logs adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com were not provided by P (they would be generated by Microsoft Azure Cloud), 'Services' and 'Application' as defined in clauses 3.1 and 1.1 respectively do not refer to the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub account with Microsoft Azure Cloud.

Similarly, clause 6.3 (b) of the 2023 agreement deals with 'Generated Materials' derived, created, developed or generated in the course of the performance of the Services rendered by D using the 'Customer Materials'. Again, it has nothing to do with the storage and management of the data arising from the use of the MBJB Spot Application on D's adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account with Microsoft Azure Cloud. The Plaintiff's application for injunctive relief on an inter partes basis under Enclosure 3

In deciding whether to grant the interim injunction sought by P, I follow the approach laid down by the Court of Appeal in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor bin Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193 at 206-207.

Firstly, I ask whether there is a bona fide serious issue to be tried. Bearing in mind that the pleadings and evidence are incomplete at this stage, I refrain from making any determination on the merits of the claim. I am to identify the issues raised, and decide whether they are serious enough to merit a trial. If I find that no serious question is disclosed, that is the end of the matter and the interim injunction is refused. On the other hand, if I find that there are serious questions to be tried, I move on to the next step.

Secondly, having found that an issue has been disclosed which requires further investigation, I consider where the justice of the case lies. In making this assessment, I take into account all relevant matters, including the practical realities of the case. I weigh the harm that the interim injunction would produce by its grant, against the harm that would result from its refusal. If I conclude that P would suffer greater injustice if relief is withheld, I would be entitled to grant the interim injunction. Conversely, if I conclude that D would suffer the greater injustice by the grant of an interim injunction, I would be entitled to refuse relief.

Thirdly, I am mindful that the remedy which I am asked to administer is discretionary. It is intended to produce a just result for the period between the date of Enclosure 3 and the trial proper, and intended to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, I am entitled to take into account all discretionary considerations. For instance, whether there is any adequate alternative remedy that would satisfy P's equity. Such as an award of monetary compensation, in the event that they succeed in establishing their claim at the trial.

Having undertaken this line of enquiry in the present matter, my decision was to refuse the interim injunction sought by P. Here are my reasons.

At the outset, there is no serious issue to be tried. P has failed to show that it may have some sort of a right to full access to the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account created by D under its main account with Microsoft Azure Cloud. The sub - account (and main account) is subscribed by D, and not P. It is D, and not P, who is the owner and administrator. It is D, and not P, who is fully responsible for the same.

Incidentally, despite P asserting at paragraph 19 of its affidavit in support (Enclosure 4) that "the Plaintiff's access to the data stored in the MBJB Spot Cloud [i.e. ACC - MBJB SPOT, later, adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com] however, was only through the Defendant, as the Defendant administered the cloud environment for the Plaintiff", P bizarrely at paragraph 22 of its affidavit in reply (Enclosure 15) asserted that "the Plaintiff avers that it had direct access to its ACC - MBJB SPOT account through the Plaintiff's own log in credentials."

If P had direct access to its ACC - MBJB SPOT account through P's own log in credentials, then, what is the rationale for this suit?

If the relief sought is for D to export the system logs to P, then, that could perhaps be considered, at least on a prima facie level, a serious issue to be tried (although D submits that P does not even have a right to do that). But that is not what P wants. The relief sought by P in the statement of claim is: “(i) a mandatory injunction for the Defendant to grant the Plaintiff full access to adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com. system log."

In case I am wrong in my finding that there is no serious question to be tried, I move on to the other considerations. P's reason for irreparable harm if the injunctive relief is not granted, is that "the Defendant may destroy and / or delete the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com system logs and the Plaintiff will have no access to any information as to whether any unauthorized parties have access to the Plaintiff's data stored in the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com domain."

P's excuse for being concerned that its confidential data may have been accessed or compromised by unauthorised parties, is based on nothing more than a report that ITMAX System Bhd is partnering with D to develop smart parking solutions. Basically, they will form a company to create or develop smart parking enforcement solutions, something which D has been doing all along and for which P engaged D to do pursuant to the 2016 agreement.

Merely from that and the fact that ITMAX System Bhd is the majority shareholder of Southmax Sdn Bhd (supposedly P's competitor in the smart parking business in Johor), P made the cataclysmic leap to being "seriously concerned that its confidential data may have been accessed or compromised by unauthorized parties." P's basis and reasoning, especially for injunctive relief, is untenable.

P has, since the termination of the 2023 agreement by way of a notice dated 28.10.2025, moved on to a different service provider in relation to the parking application. As about six months have since lapsed, surely P would have an inkling as to whether the data has been compromised. Yet, all P can say is that P will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted as P will have no access to any information as to whether any unauthorised parties have access to P's data stored in the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account.

Put simply, there is not even prima facie evidence of any alleged damage, much less irreparable damage, even after six months. As against this, P wants D to continue to subscribe and maintain the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account with Microsoft Azure Cloud, and thereby continue to incur costs.

P has not claimed that any unauthorised parties have accessed P's data stored in the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com domain, or given any indication that such unnamed unauthorised parties may have accessed. Essentially, on the basis that P merely wants to check whether any unauthorised parties have access to P's data stored in the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com domain, P wants full access to D's sub - account (and consequently main account) with Microsoft Azure Cloud. Somehow without such access, it would cause P irreparable harm.

Nevertheless, there is not even prima facie evidence of any alleged damage, much less irreparable damage. It is akin to a bank customer wanting full access to how the bank keeps and manages the money the customer deposits with the bank (and the business logic and confidential information that the bank uses), on the excuse that the customer wants to check whether any other party has access to the same.

The same can be said of P's argument on balance of convenience. P claims that without the injunction, P would forever be deprived of information as to whether any unauthorised parties, including any competitors, have accessed P's data. Yet, P has failed to adduce a sliver of evidence to even show that any unauthorised parties including any competitors may have, much less actually did, access P's data.

As held by the Supreme Court in Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & 6 Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 241, the test of balance of convenience requires the court to adopt the course that appears to carry the lower risk of injustice. To wit:

the risk that, if the interlocutory injunction is refused and the plaintiff succeeds at trial, the harm, inconvenience, and monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated by damages; and

the risk that, if the interlocutory injunction is granted and the plaintiff subsequently fails at trial, the harm and inconvenience suffered by the defendant cannot be adequately compensated by damages.

Here, P has not shown any prima facie damage for the court to even consider the balance of convenience. P has failed to cross the threshold required for injunctive relief. The Defendant's application under Enclosure 11 to set aside the ex parte injunction order

D contends that, in applying for the ex parte injunction order, P has failed to disclose material facts to the court. D contends that these omissions are material, as they go to the core of whether the ex parte injunction order ought to have been granted in the first place.

First, when P terminated the 2023 agreement on 28.10.2025 on the basis of D's alleged non-compliance and failure to provide P with full and unobstructed access to its data, P required D to "deactivate all MBJB Spot services and related cloud instances on 1 November 2025 at 0000 hours". This, according to D, contradicts what P now seeks, which is essentially for D to continue to subscribe to, and maintain, the said adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account with Microsoft Azure Cloud.

Second, P has not made payment since July 2025 (despite repeated requests) towards the services rendered by D in relation to the storage and management of the data in the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account. D's repeated offers to maintain the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account, provided P makes payment of the outstanding as well as for the extended period, were not taken up by P.

Since P refused to take up D's repeated offers, D had on 3.2.2026 unregistered the subscription to the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account. However, upon being served with the ex parte injunction order on 26.2.2026, D in abundance of action re - registered the same on 2.3.2026 (just before the right to re - register expired), and thereby continues to incur cost for doing so.

I do agree with D that there has been non - disclosure of material facts by P, when P applied for and obtained the ex parte injunction order, which essentially forced D to continue to maintain the cloud service i.e. the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account. To wit, P did not disclose that:- (a) it had insisted that D "deactivate all MBJB Spot services and related cloud instances on 1 November 2025 at 0000 hours"; and (b) it has not made payment since July 2025 (despite repeated requests) and refused to take up D's repeated offers to maintain the adminpresgogateways.onmicrosoft.com sub - account, provided P makes payment of the outstanding as well as for the extended period.

Be that as it may, there is no absolute right to have an ex parte injunction order obtained without due disclosure set aside. There is a discretion in the court whether to do so or not. (See the Court of Appeal case of Damayanti Kantilal Doshi & Anor v Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi [2004] 1 MLJ 456 at [25]).

In this matter, I am satisfied that the justice of the case is met by the dismissal of Enclosure 3. To wit, by not continuing the ex parte injunction order. I did not think it was necessary to set aside the ex parte injunction order on top of that. I therefore exercised my discretion against allowing Enclosure 11.

For the reasons above, I dismissed P's injunction application in Enclosure 3. I awarded costs of RM 10,000 to D. Dated 8 June 2026 Quay Chew Soon Judge High Court of Kuala Lumpur (Commercial Division NCC 2) Counsels V. Manokaran and Yohendra Nadarajan (Messrs. Yohendra Nadarajan) for the Plaintiff Douglas Yee and Chin Win Sheng (Messrs. Douglas Yee) for the Defendant Case reference

Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor bin Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193

Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & 6 Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 241

Damayanti Kantilal Doshi & Anor v Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi [2004] 1 MLJ 456 Legislation reference

Order 29 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012