Court clarifies no ad interim injunction issued, says developer's lawyer
The High Court in Shah Alam has clarified it did not issue an ad interim injunction against One City Development Sdn Bhd from retaking the land on which the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in Subang Jaya is located, according to the firm's lawyer Claudia Cheah.
She said High Court judge Wong Kian Kheong told both parties in chambers this morning that it was an undertaking by One City Development not to proceed with the retaking of the land until an interim injunction application is heard next month...
The High Court in Shah Alam has clarified it did not issue an ad interim injunction against One City Development Sdn Bhd from retaking the land on which the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in Subang Jaya is located, according to the firm's lawyer Claudia Cheah.
She said High Court judge Wong Kian Kheong told both parties in chambers this morning that it was an undertaking by One City Development not to proceed with the retaking of the land until an interim injunction application is heard next month.
Cheah also said Justice Wong informed the parties that this undertaking would lapse should the court strike out the action of the plaintiff (the temple task force) before the Jan 11 date.
"The learned judge has clarified and confirmed that the High Court did not make any order whatsoever yesterday for an ad interim injunction.
"The judge further clarified that based on the court's records, One City Development informed the court yesterday that it undertakes not to execute the consent judgment, pending hearing of the interim injunction application this Jan 11,” Cheah added in a statement.
This morning's meeting with the judge was initiated after legal teams representing the plaintiff and One City Development (fifth defendant) had different interpretations of yesterday's ruling, which was made in chambers.
The lawyer from the Skrine & Co legal firm said One City Development would be filing an application to strike out the plaintiffs' action next week.

Meanwhile, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs confirmed that the judge had clarified that there was no ad interim injunction order issued.
"As regards to the confusion in what happened at the court yesterday after the application for interim injunction was heard, both lawyers met the judge again this morning.
"The court clarified that although the plaintiffs sought for an ad interim injunction, the developer gave an undertaking not to proceed with any execution proceedings on the temple land until the hearing of the application on Jan 11. There was no ad interim injunction order made.
"As such the status quo of the suit remains until Jan 11," said the lawyer, who declined to be named.






Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.