Shine DC Technology Sdn. Bhd. v Ni, ke (WA-22NCvC-321-05/2025)

NI, KE (People's Republic of China Passport No.: EC3866511)

SHINE TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD (Singapore Registration No. 201935038W) ...DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This is the Court’s Grounds of Judgment in respect of the Plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction under Enclosure 13, which was dismissed by this Court. 06/04/2026 08:28:35

Prior to the hearing of Enclosure 13, the Plaintiff had also filed an application under Enclosure 53 seeking, inter alia, to expunge certain affidavits filed by the Defendants on the basis of alleged defects in the jurat.

The Court heard both Enclosure 53 and Enclosure 13 and delivered its decision dismissing Enclosure 53 and subsequently dismissing Enclosure 13. These Grounds set out the reasons for both decisions.

The dispute between the parties arises out of a commercial relationship involving corporate control, management and contractual dealings relating to the Plaintiff’s business operations.

The Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the Defendants have interfered with its business and contractual arrangements, including communications with third parties and steps taken in relation to legal proceedings.

The Defendants dispute these allegations and contend that their actions are lawful and justified.

The applications relevant to these two Grounds of Judgments are:

Enclosure 53 – the Plaintiff’s application to expunge the Defendants’ affidavits on the basis of alleged defects in the jurat; and

Enclosure 13 – the Plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction under sections 50 and 51 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 and Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012. D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The issues before the Court were as follows:

Whether the alleged defects in the jurat rendered the Defendants’ affidavits inadmissible (Enclosure 53);

Whether the Plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction (Enclosure 13). E. FINDINGS ON ENCLOSURE 53

The Plaintiff contended that the Defendants’ affidavits were defective for want of a proper jurat and should be expunged.

The applicable legal principles are set out in Order 41 rule 4, Order 2 rule 1 and Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012, which make clear that procedural non-compliance is generally treated as an irregularity and does not automatically render a document a nullity.

The authorities distinguish between:

defects going to the existence or integrity of the oath; and

defects of form that are curable or may be overlooked in the absence of prejudice.

On the facts, it was not disputed that the affidavits were affirmed before a Commissioner for Oaths. The objections raised relate to the form or completeness of the jurat rather than the validity of the oath itself.

The Court was therefore satisfied that the alleged defects are procedural irregularities and do not go to the root of the affidavits.

The Defendants had also filed explanatory affidavits pursuant to directions given during case management. Compliance with such directions cannot be characterised as an abuse of process.

The absence of a formal application for leave does not render the affidavits inadmissible unless the defects are of such gravity as to require leave.

The Plaintiff’s reliance on a different procedural approach adopted in another suit involving the same parties does not bind this Court. Each case must be determined on its own procedural facts.

In the circumstances, the Court found that there was no basis to expunge the affidavits.

Enclosure 53 was accordingly dismissed. F.

The Plaintiff seeks an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit to restrain the Defendants from, among others:

Commencing court proceedings relating to the Plaintiff’s contracts and business operations.

Filing any winding-up petition against the Plaintiff.

Interfering with or making representations to third parties involved in the Plaintiff’s subcontract and related commercial arrangements.

The underlying dispute concerns a commercial relationship involving the subcontract and corporate control issues between the parties, including allegations that the Defendants attempted to circumvent the proceedings by filing a winding-up petition after being served with the suit papers.

Applicable Principles

Having resolved the preliminary objections as in Enclosure 53, the Court proceeded to consider the Plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction.

The applicable principles governing the grant of an interlocutory injunction are well established. The Court must consider:

whether there is a serious issue to be tried;

whether damages would be an adequate remedy; and

where the balance of convenience lies.

These principles are settled following the decisions in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd, Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193 and PPES Resorts Sdn Bhd v Keruntum Sdn Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 436, which emphasise that the Court should adopt a flexible approach directed at minimising the risk of injustice.

Serious Issue to be Tried

From the pleadings and affidavits, the dispute concerns:

control and shareholding issues between the parties;

alleged interference with the Plaintiff’s subcontract;

communications with third-party contractors;

the filing of a winding-up petition.

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff failed to disclose material facts, that the Plaintiff is attempting to prevent legitimate legal actions, and that the injunction would restrain constitutional rights, including freedom of expression and access to courts.

The Plaintiff, on the other hand, alleges deliberate attempts by the Defendants to disrupt its contractual performance and attempts to circumvent the proceedings by filing a winding-up petition.

Having examined the pleadings and affidavit evidence, the Court was satisfied that the dispute raises issues which are neither frivolous nor vexatious.

The threshold at this stage is a low one, requiring only that the claim is not plainly unsustainable, as recognised in Law Kam Loy & Anor v Boltex Sdn Bhd & Ors [2005] CLJ 355.

The allegations concerning corporate control, management and interference with business operations involve contested questions of fact and law which cannot be resolved at this interlocutory stage.

The Court therefore found that there is a serious issue to be tried.

Adequacy of Damages

The Plaintiff contends that it has suffered disruption to its commercial operations and relationships with third parties.

While certain aspects of such loss may be difficult to quantify, the Court noted that the dispute arises from commercial dealings and contractual relationships which are, in principle, capable of being compensated by damages.

In this regard, the Court is guided by Mobikom Sdn Bhd v Inmiss Communications Sdn Bhd [2007] 3 MLJ 316, where the Court recognised that losses arising from commercial arrangements are generally compensable in damages.

Balance of Convenience

The Court then considered where the balance of convenience lies.

The injunction sought by the Plaintiff is wide in scope and includes orders restraining the Defendants from initiating legal proceedings and communicating with third parties.

The Court further notes that a winding-up petition has been filed in the High Court at Johor Bahru and that the Plaintiff has taken steps in those proceedings to challenge the petition.

In those circumstances, issues relating to the propriety of the winding-up proceedings are matters properly to be determined by the court hearing the winding-up petition.

This Court should be slow to grant interlocutory relief which may interfere with proceedings pending before another High Court of coordinate jurisdiction.

The Court is also mindful that interlocutory injunctions should not unduly restrict a party’s legitimate legal or commercial rights before the dispute is determined at trial.

In Ting Chuen Peng & Ors v Yap Kian @ Yap Sin Tian & Anor [2016] 7 MLJ 445, the Court emphasised that injunctive relief must not be used to stifle legitimate legal rights or processes.

Further, the Court is guided by Le Apple Boutique Hotel Sdn Bhd v Keen Solution Sdn Bhd [2023] 6 MLJ 454, which underscores that the balance of convenience must favour the course that carries the lower risk of injustice.

At this stage, the Court is not in a position to make definitive findings on the contested factual allegations. Nothing in this decision should be taken as expressing any concluded view on the ultimate merits of the parties’ respective claims.

Granting the injunction in the terms sought would impose significant restraints on the Defendants’ ability to conduct their affairs and pursue legal remedies.

In those circumstances, the Court was not persuaded that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.

Taking all the circumstances into account, and applying the established principles, the Court found that the Plaintiff had not satisfied the requirement that it is just and convenient to grant the interim injunctive relief sought.

The decision to grant or refuse an interlocutory injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion. Therefore, in exercising that discretion, the Court has considered all relevant factors, including the nature of the dispute, the scope of the relief sought, the adequacy of damages, and the need to avoid prejudging the merits of the case.

The Court was satisfied that the refusal of the injunction represents the course that carries the lower risk of injustice pending trial.

Enclosure 13 was therefore dismissed.

For the reasons set out above:

Enclosure 53 is dismissed;

Enclosure 13 is dismissed;

Costs of Enclosure 13 are costs in the cause. Dated: 3rd April 2026 ………………………………………………….. (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiff : Justin Voon Tiam Yu & Victor Pang Chee Siong Messrs. Justin Voon Chooi & Wing Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendants : Cecelia Tan Shu Shia & Fatin Izyan Messrs. Soh Hayati & Co.