In civil litigation, parties are not always required to wait until the end of a full trial to obtain relief. Malaysian law provides a range of interim remedies that allow the court to intervene at an early stage to prevent injustice, preserve assets, or manage litigation risks.

These remedies are particularly important in situations where delay may render a final judgment ineffective. This article examines three key forms of interim measures: striking out claims, security for costs, and interim injunctions.

What Are Interim Remedies?

Interim remedies are court orders granted before a full trial is concluded. Their purpose is not to decide the case, but to preserve the status quo and prevent injustice while the dispute is being resolved.

Such remedies are typically applied for together with or shortly after the commencement of proceedings. In urgent situations, they may be granted without prior notice to the opposing party, subject to certain safeguards imposed by the court.

Striking Out Weak or Abusive Claims

One form of early court intervention is the ability to strike out claims or defences that are fundamentally flawed. While not always grouped strictly as a “remedy”, it functions as an important procedural tool to protect parties from unnecessary litigation.

The court may strike out a claim where it

• discloses no reasonable cause of action;

• is frivolous or vexatious;

• may prejudice or delay a fair trial; or

• constitutes an abuse of the court’s process.

Such applications are made through a formal application supported by affidavit evidence, and the court will decide the matter after hearing both parties.

This mechanism ensures that parties are not burdened with defending claims that are clearly unsustainable. However, the courts generally exercise this power cautiously and only in clear cases because it effectively ends the case without trial.

 

Security for Costs

A defendant may also seek protection through an application for security for costs. This is an interim measure intended to ensure that a claimant will be able to pay the defendant’s legal costs if the claim is unsuccessful.

The court may grant such an order in several circumstances, including 

• the claimant resides outside the jurisdiction;

• the claimant is suing on behalf of another party and may lack financial means;

• the claimant’s address is not properly stated; or

• there are concerns that the claimant is attempting to avoid liability for costs. 

In deciding whether to grant security for costs, the court considers factors such as whether the claim is genuine, whether the application is oppressive, and whether the claimant’s financial difficulties were caused by the defendant.

Security for costs therefore serves to balance the interests of both parties by protecting defendants from financial risk while ensuring that genuine claims are not unfairly hindered.

 

Interim Injunctions

Another important form of interim relief is the interim injunction, which allows the court to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the case.

There are two main types of interim injunctions

• Prohibitory injunctions, which restrain a party from carrying out certain acts; and

• Mandatory injunctions, which require a party to perform a specific act.

When determining whether to grant an interim injunction, the court will consider several key factors. First, there must be a serious question to be tried. Second, damages must not be an adequate remedy. Third, the balance of convenience must favour the applicant.

The applicable standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. In most cases, the applicant is also required to provide an undertaking as to damages, as a safeguard in the event that the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted.

In urgent situations, an injunction may be granted without prior notice to the opposing party. However, such orders are subject to further review by the court.

 

Mandatory Injunctions

Mandatory injunctions are generally more difficult to obtain than prohibitory injunctions. The applicant must establish that damages would not be sufficient to remedy the harm, that the balance of hardship lies in their favour, and that serious damage would result if the injunction is not granted.

This stricter approach reflects the more intrusive nature of such orders, as they require a party to take positive action rather than simply refrain from doing something.

 

Conclusion

Interim remedies play a crucial role in Malaysian litigation by allowing the court to take early action where necessary. Whether through striking out weak claims, requiring security for costs, or granting interim injunctions, these measures help to ensure that proceedings remain fair and effective.

Understanding these remedies is essential for parties involved in litigation, as they can significantly influence both the strategy and outcome of a case even before trial begins.

If you require advice on interim applications or are involved in ongoing litigation, our team would be pleased to assist. Please feel free to contact us to discuss your situation and explore the appropriate legal options available.