KARUPPANNAN V

BALAKRISHNEN (CHONG LEE

CHIN&ORS,THIRD PARTIES)
[1994] FEDERAL COURT(KL)
INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION OF EQUITY& TRUSTS LAW I
TOPIC 8- INJUNCTION
PRESENTER : NOOR SYAFIQAH NAFISAH BINTI
AGOESTONO (A156109)
TUESDAY (14/11/17, 4-5PM)
 INTRODUCTION
INTERLOCUTARY INJUCTION

An interlocutory injunction is a provisional order made at an earlier stage in

the proceedings before the court has had the opportunity to assess the
merits of the application.
Granted before final determination MAREVA INJUNCTION
Serves as provisional measure (Mareva Compania Naviera S.a v
Effective during trial/before judgement International Bulkcarriers S.A (1975)
May granted as ex parte
A prohibitory injunction
Object: To freeze the Defendants asset
Lian Keow Sdn so as to ensure they not dispose before
Bhd & Anor v. judgement and leaving nothing for
OBJECT: To prevent a litigant who
Overseas Credit Plaintiff
must necessarily suffer the laws
Finance (M) Bhd delay from losing by that delay Interlocutary : applied ex parte due to
& Ors its urgent nature.
 FACT OF THE CASE
The respondent(Balakrishnen) is the registered owner of the land for LOT 25 at
Sec 3 Brinchang, Cameron Highlands WHILE
The adjacent lot, LOT 26, belongs to the appellant (Karuppanan)

Then, a four storey hotel stood on Lot 26 (the appellant lot)

Previous owner of Lot 26 obtained planning permission to build windows which protrude
into adjacent Lot 25.
The respondent also alleged trespass against the appellant for constructing a side exit,
sewerage system, manholes and septic tank which encroached on his Lot Lot 25.
Later, owner of Lot 25(Respondent) wanted to build a hotel, asked new owner of Lot 26 (
Appellant) to remove the windows.
As the previous owner applied to Pengerusi Lembaga Bandaran Cameron Highland that she
be allowed to build the side windows at the same time undertook her to remove when
there is construction made by the new owner of Lot 25.

BUT THE APPEALLANT FAIL TO DO SO

 HELD: DISMISSING THE APPEAL

The respondents application for an interlocutory

mandatory injunction to compel the appellant to
remove the protrusions and encroachments was
granted.
FEDERAL COURT: The law has clearly spelt out the
right of an individual over his land- he is given the
EXCLUSIVE use of airspace above his land.
The appellant (owner of Lot 26) had no right to
encroach into airspace of Lot 25.
 RELATION OF THE LAW USED IN THE CASE
Sec 5 NLC 1965 The code lays down the definition of condition and restriction in interest is. As to condition there
are two types ;implied and the other express.
Implied conditionsare those imposed by the Code such as agriculture (s.115), building (s 116)
and so on.
None of theimplied conditions comes anywhere close to the undertaking in this case.
Thus does not relate to the implied condition as above and even if does its certainly does not
require endorsement on the document of title as it is a statutory direction.
Restrictions: Sec Subject to the provisions of this Act, any other written law
44(1)(a)NLC 1965 Eg: Civil Aviation Act 1969
exclusive use and enjoyment of,
so much of the column of airspace above the surface of the land
as is reasonably necessary

Civil Aviation Act Section 19 (1) No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of
1969 the flight of aircraft over any property at a height above the ground, which, having regard to wind,
weather, and all the circumstances of the case, is reasonable
Sivaperuman v In support of her contention that there are no exceptional circumstances as to merit the granting of
Heah Seok Yeong an interlocutory mandatory injunction before trial. The injunction mentioned would virtually give the
Realty Sdn[1979] respondent the full relief sought to be secured.