Edisijuta Parking Sdn. Bhd. v TH Universal Builders Sdn. Bhd. & Ors

Appellant(s): Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

• Th Universal Builders Sdn. Bhd.
• Lembaga Tabung Haji

YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

• The appellant, a carpark operator, had an agreement to operate services at a building, which was later assigned by the original owner to the second respondent.
• The appellant alleged that the agreement was extended until 2027, but the second respondent issued a notice of expiry and handover.
• The High Court dismissed the appellant's interlocutory injunction application, set aside an earlier ex parte injunction, and struck out the appellant's suit, also dismissing the appellant's Erinford injunction application and ordering eviction.

• Whether a single judge of the Court of Appeal has the power to grant an ex parte Erinford injunction pending the disposal of an appeal.
• What are the appropriate options for the Court of Appeal when faced with an ex parte application, particularly concerning the principle of *audi alteram partem*?
• How do Sections 38, 44, and 73 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 distinguish the powers of a single judge versus a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal regarding interim orders and stays of execution?

• The single judge decided to hear the appellant's ex parte Erinford injunction application on an inter partes basis, emphasizing that inter partes applications are the rule unless genuinely impossible to give notice without defeating the order's purpose.
• The court held that a single judge, under Section 44(1) CJA, has the power to grant an Erinford injunction as an "interim order to prevent prejudice to the claims of parties pending the hearing of the proceeding," applying the "Prevention of Prejudice Test."
• A conditional interim Erinford injunction was granted against the second respondent, pending the appeal's disposal, subject to the appellant providing an undertaking as to damages and depositing RM200,000 as security.