HOME

INTRODUCTION

This article considers the relevance and necessity of the 'balance of convenience' criterion in the grant of freezing injunctions (or more commonly referred to as Mareva injunctions). Prior to the Court of Appeal's judgment in Lee Kai Wuen,^[1] the case law of the courts was inconsistent in its application of this criterion. Several authorities applied this criterion as a necessary element to the grant of a freezing injunction. The Court of Appeal's decision in Lee Kai Wuen held otherwise, stating that its importation was a result of an erroneous conflation of the principles for the grant of freezing injunctions and other forms of interlocutory injunctions.

The decision in Lee Kai Wuen is correct both as a matter of principle and law. There is no reason to consider the 'balance of convenience', in the American Cyanamid^[2] sense, when dealing with freezing injunctions. This is due to the distinct rationales and purposes of both forms of injunctive relief. Freezing injunctions are designed to prevent the stultification of any judgment that may be obtained by the applicant for a freezing injunction. In contrast, non-freezing interlocutory injunctions are primarily intended to preserve the status quo or subject matter of the dispute pending the resolution of the substantive claim.

1. All of you would have heard and seen by now, numerous presentations, videos, discussions about both the threat and promise of AI. AI is now a given in all our lives, at work, in school, and at home. It is already ubiquitous, and will continue to become more indispensable. The genie has been let out of the bottle and we cannot put it back. AI is in the end a tool. Tools can maim and kill, just as much as they can help us in our work, enabling us to do more, better and faster. What we can and must do is to be clear eyed, use the tool wisely and guard against the risks, danger and abuse.

2. We, in the judiciary, are trying to do just that. In the next thirty or so minutes, I hope to outline our approach to AI, bearing in mind the way it can be misused, and what we hope to achieve with it.

Abuse

3. Let me address the abuses first. Hallucinations by generative AI would be the most well known, and constantly make the headlines. Most recently, we have had two cases in England and Wales heard together by the Divisional Court of the King's Bench, Ayinde v. London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v. Qatar National Bank and Anor [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), each with fictitious authorities being cited to the court. 

The apex court rules that transactions premised on gambling activities are against public policy and are illegal, null, and void.

A gambling debt is not legally enforceable in Malaysia on grounds of public policy, the Federal Court has ruled. In delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Justice Nordin Hassan noted that the government had repeatedly and firmly voiced its stance against gambling in Parliament on grounds that the public derives no benefit from it.

Globally, there is an unfettered right of access to court proceedings by the public, which is consilient with the principle of open justice as it is regarded as an essential tenet of any justice system to guarantee public confidence, independence, and accountability in the administration of justice. In Malaysia, Section 15 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 states that all civil and criminal matters shall be deemed to be open and accessible to the public. Journalists are often keen to report on cases that are newsworthy and those that garners public interest wherein they act as an intermediary between the public and the courts.