Why did Dhaya Maju LTAT seek an ad interim injunction?

Question

Accepted Answer

Dhaya Maju LTAT Sought an Ad Interim Injunction to Preserve the Status Quo Pending an Appeal Hearing

Dhaya Maju LTAT Sdn Bhd sought an ad interim injunction to maintain the status quo of the Klang Valley Double Tracking Phase 2 (KVDT2) project. This action was necessary because the previous injunction granted by the High Court was set to expire on June 24, and the Court of Appeal's hearing for their Erinford injunction application was scheduled for July 26. The ad interim order was granted to prevent the company's appeal from becoming redundant before it could be heard.
Previous Injunction Expiring

The company had previously obtained an injunction from the High Court that was due to expire on June 24. This earlier order was intended to temporarily halt instructions for the company to stop work on the KVDT2 project. However, with the Court of Appeal's hearing for the Erinford injunction not scheduled until July 26, Dhaya Maju LTAT required an interim measure to bridge this gap.
High Court Dismissal and Appeal

Dhaya Maju LTAT had filed an appeal against the High Court's decision on June 4, which had dismissed its initial application for an interim injunction. The High Court judge had ruled that Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 prevented courts from issuing injunctions against the government to halt official duties. This dismissal necessitated the pursuit of an Erinford injunction at the Court of Appeal.
Purpose of an Erinford Injunction

An Erinford injunction is a court order specifically designed to preserve the existing state of affairs while an appeal is being considered. In this context, Dhaya Maju LTAT aimed to use this legal mechanism to ensure that work on the RM4.475 billion KVDT2 project could continue uninterrupted until the Court of Appeal could adjudicate on the merits of their appeal against the contract termination.
Legal Proceedings Over Contract Termination

The company initiated legal proceedings against the government, the Transport Minister, KTMB, and Opus Consultants following the termination of its contract for the KVDT2 project. Dhaya Maju LTAT claimed that it had not officially received a termination notice and was unaware of the contract's end until it was publicly announced by the Transport Minister. This lack of formal notification formed a key part of their legal challenge.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why did Dhaya Maju LTAT seek an ad interim injunction?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends