Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah v 1. ) Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow (WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021)

DATO’ SRI ANDREW KAM TAI YEOW (No. K/P: 620202-10-6039)

HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI (No. K/P: 911130-14-5118) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF DECISION (Encl. 32: 2nd Defendant’s Application to Set Aside Ad Interim Injunction) Background [1] This is the 2nd Defendant’s application filed together with the Affidavit in Support affirmed by Hannah Kam Zhen Yi (Encl. 33) on 31.1.2022 for the following prayers: 09/05/2025 16:39:01 WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 Kand. 218 S/N 07HMij5iEku3rJs0svLI7w a) that the Ad Interim Order dated 27.12.2021 insofar as it concerns the 2nd Defendant be set aside; b) that an investigation and assessment of damages against the Plaintiff be held and to be paid to the 2nd Defendant forthwith; c) cost to be borne by the Plaintiff and to be assessed and paid forthwith; and d) further and other orders or reliefs as the Court deems fit and proper. [2] The cause papers filed are as follows: a) 2nd Defendant’s Written Submissions, Submissions in Reply and Bundle of Authorities (Encl. 71, 72, 75 and 76); and b) Plaintiff’s Written Submissions, Submissions in Reply and Bundle of Authorities (Encl. 69, 70, 73 and 74). Court orders [3] On 27.12.2021 (Encl. 66), upon hearing inter-partes, the Court granted an Ad Interim Order and thereby ordered and directed that the S/N 07HMij5iEku3rJs0svLI7w Defendants and each of them by themselves or agents or servants or otherwise be restrained, an injunction is hereby granted restraining them and each of them from taking any further steps in the proceeding commenced by the 1st Defendant under the Mental Health Act 2001 (MHA) against the Plaintiff save and except upon the Plaintiff’s counsel undertaking that the 1st Defendant shall be at liberty to take all steps (including making ancillary applications) to oppose the striking out application filed by the Plaintiff herein in OS No. WA-24 NCvC-2619-12/2021 until the disposal of this application (Encl. 4: Plaintiff’s Application for Injunctive relief) on 18.3.2022. The written grounds of judgment dated 6.3.2022 (Encl. 60) is incorporated in the Plaintiff’s Bundle of Authorities (Encl. 70 Tab. 3). Submissions by the 2nd Defendant [4] The brief grounds of submissions are outlined herein:

Plaintiff does not meet the test for an Ad Interim Injunction;

No status quo to preserve as against the 2nd Defendant;

Prayer 1 of Encl. 4 was to seek a quia timet injunction to prevent a suit from being filed where the Plaintiff was suspicious that the 2nd Defendant would file an MHA action against him;

No serious questions to be tried between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant (see the Federal Court case of Petrodar S/N 07HMij5iEku3rJs0svLI7w Operating Co. Ltd. v. Nam Fatt Corporation Bhd. & Anor. [2014] 1 CLJ 18);

The Plaintiff did not adduce evidence to show that he will suffer irreparable damage should the injunction not be granted against the 2nd Defendant;

Plaintiff’s lack of bona fide, see Court of Appeal case in Leasing Corporation Sdn. Bhd. v. Indah Lestari Sdn. Bhd. [2007] 6 CLJ 554; and

Injunction sought is prohibited by Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137). Submissions by the Plaintiff [5] The filing of the appeal was not disclosed in her affidavit in support of Encl. 32 hence the 2nd Defendant’s application is an abuse of the process of Court as the 2nd Defendant is seeking exactly the same relief. Therefore the 2nd Defendant has violated the rule against multiplicity of proceedings. [6] The Court of Appeal in the case of The Royal Selangor Golf Club v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [2012] 5 MLJ 364 at p. 370 decided as follows: S/N 07HMij5iEku3rJs0svLI7w “[12] In the ordinary case, if a court erred, the proper course is an appeal. Since a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal had be e n f il e d e arli er , t he application in encl 9 is in duplicity of the appeal process. Until an appeal is withdrawn, dismissed or otherwise disposed of by the court to which it is filed, it remains in existence as an appeal. No evidence was put before the court that the appeal was withdrawn. The alternative of making an application to clarify the order appealed from having been forgone, remained foregone. The filing of the application at Enclosure 9 before the High Court created a duplicity. The document that created the duplicity must fall. There cannot be a question of the party committing a duplicity being at liberty to choose which is to be proceeded with without having first withdrawn the other." Analysis and Decision [7] The Ad Interim Injunction orders were granted by this Court after an inter-partes hearing, hence it is not open to the 2nd Defendant to apply to set it aside. [8] On 18.3.2022 (Encl. 67), upon hearing inter-partes, the Court granted an Ad Interim Order and thereby ordered and directed that the Ad Interim Injunction dated 27.12.2021 be extended until the disposal of the notice of application dated 20.12.2021 (Encl. 4) on 13.4.2022. S/N 07HMij5iEku3rJs0svLI7w [9] On 27.5.2022 (Encl. 97), upon hearing inter-partes, the Court granted an Ad Interim Order and thereby ordered and directed that the Ad Interim Injunction dated 27.12.2021 be extended until the final disposal of the Notice of Application dated 20.12.2021 (Encl. 4) at the High Court. [10] On 10.1.2022 (Encl. 19), the 1st Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal against the Ad Interim Injunction granted on 27.12.2021. On 13.1.2022 (Encl. 24), the 2nd Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal against the Ad Interim Injunction granted on 27.12.2021. The appeal in Mahkamah Rayuan Sivil No. W-02 (IM) (NCV)-115-01/2022 was unanimously dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 subject to allocatur on 15.12.2022 (Encl. 25). [11] The question is whether the 2nd Defendant be allowed to set aside an order that has been extended until the final disposal of Encl. 4 at the High Court. Having heard both parties, this Court has granted the Ad Interim Injunction pending the disposal of Encl. 4. [12] Furthermore, it was crystal clear that the appeal that was filed in the Court of Appeal (Encl. 24) was unanimously dismissed with costs. Needless to say, Encl. 32 is a camouflaged attempt to have a second bite of the cherry, and therefore ought to be dismissed with costs. S/N 07HMij5iEku3rJs0svLI7w Conclusion [13] Based on the foregoing reasons, Encl. 32 is hereby dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid forthwith by the 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff. Dated: 29 April 2025 sgd ………………………………………….. (EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur COUNSEL Solicitors for the Plaintiff Mr. Y. C. Wong (Ms. Hannah Yeoh Yi Han with him) Messrs. Y. C. Wong Kuala Lumpur. Solicitors for the Defendants Mr. Lim Wei Jiet (Mr. Nevyn Vinosh Venudian with him) Messrs. Lim Wei Jiet Kuala Lumpur.