Injunction 2.0 Types of Injunction -e.g.

an order directing building to be

pulled down. (P.I prevent that the
1.0 Definition A. Prohibitory and Mandatory
building to be built again)
2.0 Types of injunction Prohibitory:
-it maybe given to compel the
-s. 51, 52 carrying out of certain positive
obligations by the defendant.
1.0 Definition -most common form of injunction
-e.g. an injunction require the
Hanbury and Mandsley: -direted by the court to restrain/ defendant to continue supplying
prohibit the comission or continuance petrol. (Ref: Sky Petroleum Ltd v V.I.P
-An injunction is an order by court to of a wrongful act Petroleum Ltd)
a party to the effect that he shall do
or refrain from doing a particular act -the injunction must be based on the -similat with SP in this sense,
infringe of a legal or equitable right, however SP is a remedy for breach of
the court will not order an injunction contract injunction not necessarily
Niino & Co. Ltd. V. Kow Lup when no legal or equitable right is involves a contract.
affected.
Kai
-e.g. restrain the breach of contract,
-It is either (1) interlocutory or
restrain from permitted certain B. Perpetual and Interlocutory
interim, ie an order until the hearing
building to remain on certain land. Injunction
of the action or further order; or (2)
perpetual, ie a judgment determining Mandatory: -perpetual means that the order will
and concluding the right in litigation; finally settle the present dispute
it is also (a) restraining, ie when it -s. 53 between the party, being made as
inhibits the doing of anything; or (b) -directed by the court to order some the result of a trial, the court having
mandatory, ie when it commands the acts to be done and the order of the heard in the ordinary way the
doing, or restoring, of anything. court should define precisely what arguments of both sides.
the defendant is required to do. -but a plaintiff may not always be
2 classification able to wait for the action to come on
in the noral course, it may be that
-It can be restorative in nature. It irrepairable damage will done if the
aimed at requiring a defendant to defendant is not immediately
undo a wrongful act. restrained.
-plaintiffs counsel will apply to the -Mareva Injunction : P applies to
court for an injunction and the judge court for an order to freeze the
E. Quia Timet Injunction
will grant an interlocutory injunction assets of the D for fear that the D will
which is effective untl the trial of the remove his assets and leave the P -Issued to prevent an infringement of
action. with no remedy; the Ps rights where the infringement
is threatened, but has not yet
-the usual purpose of such an -Anton Piller Order : an order by the
occurred
injunction is to maintain the status court directing the D to allow the P to
quo between the parties pending the enter the Ds premise so as to -the injunction can be interim,
trial. inspect and make copies of relevant interlocutory or perpetual and
documents and other appropriate prohibotory or mandatory.
-May be granted ex parte
material.
(synonym:inter parte) Two broad categories
-Non permanent in nature / -the first is where plaintiff has not yet
temporary D. Intertim injunction been injured by the defendant, but
the defendant threatens and intends
-Interlocutory granted not necessarily -Temporary in nature (similar to
to act in a way that will cause
mean perpetual will be granted. interlocutory);
impairable damage to plaintiff or
-To restrain NOT until the trial over plaintiffs property
(like interlocutory injunction) but
C. Ex Parte Injunction -in the second category the plaintiff
until some specified date
having been fully compensated for
-Ex parte signifies that the court
-usually but not always ex parte. one damage caused by defendant,
had no opportunity to hear the other
alleges that the earlier actions of the
side; -E.g.:
defendant may give rise to a future
-it will be granted granted to a P who -If notice of hearing of an cause of action.
needs a remedy urgently or if the interlocutory injunction has been
General principles
other party knows of the application served on the defendant but he is
will do injustice to the P not given sufficient time to prepare 1. A strong probability of grave
his case, then an interim injunction damage will occur in future; and
-it is an interlocutory injunction.
until the next motion day is more
2. Damages is not an adequate
-e.g.: likely to be granted than a full
remedy.
interlocutory injunction.
3. the cost of defendant to do works
to prevent or lessen the likelihood of
the future apprehended wrong must
be taken into account.
3.0 Pepertual Injunction -for eg. In cases where the D is
extremely poor (Ref: Hodgson v
-perpetual can be prohibitory or
Duce)
mandatory in nature.
-S.51, s.52 SRA
The law prior to American
4.0 Interlocutory injunction
General Priciple Cyanamid
-interlocutory injunction is the most
i. Discretionary remedy The often cited tests here were:
convenient menthod of preserving
-the injunction is discretionary the status quo while rights are -A strong prima facie case that the
remedy, based on the inadequacy of established. applicants rights had been infringed;
common law remedy
-object of interlocutory injunction is -Damages would not be an adequate
-exercised in accordance with to prevent a litigant who must remedy if he suceeded the trial,
established prinicples. necessarily suffer the laws delay
from losing by that delay the fruit of -Balance of convenience favoured the
his litigation (per Lord Wilberforce applicant;
ii. Damage as inadequate im Hoffman-La Roche (F) & Co. v. **It was more likely that he would
remedy Secretary of States For Trade & succeed in securing a final injunction
Industry) at the trial.
-when they are not quantifiable.
-I.I maybe prohibitory, mandatory,
-The damages suffered by the P quia timet.
cannot be quantified in terms of The Law Expounded In American
monetary compensation or -normally such an injunction remains Cyanamid
in force until the trial but an interim
if money couldnt properly injunction maybe granted which American Cyanamid Co v
compensate plaintiff. endures for some shorter specified Ethicon Ltd
period. o The Defendant intended to
-E.g. nuisance cases or other
launch in the British market
continuous injuries requiring a series -failure to seek an interlocutory
surgical suture and the plaintiff
of actions for damage. injunction will not necessaily
claimed an infringement of its
preclude the plaintiff from obtaining
-Where damages as a remedy would patent and sought an
a perpetual injunction and vice versa.
be ineffective
 interlocutory quia timet Publishers of the P sought an service between Kuantan and
injunction to stop it. injunction to prevent the D from KL and for damages.
launching a new tabloid, which Held: There are serious issues
Held:
was to be called the Daily Star. to be tried and the P has the
1. there was no rule requiring the Held: The P failed to show a locus standi.
plaintiff to establish a prima facie serious issue to be tried and the On the evidence the balance
case ct ruled against the P. of convenience is in favour of
2. plaintiffs case is not frivolous The judge commented that only the grant of interlocutory
a moron in a hurry would be injunction.
or vexatious and there is a
misled into thinking that Daily The interlocutory injunction is
serious qn to be tried.
Star was Morning Star. therefore granted on the
3. the balance of convenient should undertaking as to damages by
be taken into consideration. the P.
4. Other special factor Kuantan Kuala Lumpur
Express Omnibus Co Ltd v Balance of convenience
Utama Express Sdn Bhd
Plaintiffs case is not frivolous or The P had a public service -whether it is just, in all
vexatious and there is a serious circumstances, that the P should be
licence to provide express bus
qn to be tried. confined to a remedy in damages
service between Kuantan and
-Ps intentions is genuine NOT an KL. -inadequacy of damage is a sigificant
attempt to harass D; It alleged that the D was factor in assessing the balance of
illegally providing bus service convenient.
-P have to show that there serious
between Kuantan and KL -the question of balance of
question to be tried which mean that
without a public service convenience ought to be considered
he should have good arguable case.
licence and was infringing the in the following sequences:
-Once this is established, next Ps right.
consideration: BOC The plaintiff claimed an o If the applicant could be
injunction to restrain the adequately compensated for any
Morning Star Co-operative
defendant from providing bus loss caused by defendant and
Society v Express Newspapers
adequate remedy in damages at
 law is available, then the Express Newspaper Ltd v Keys shortcomings, the P proceeded
application for an interlocutory o An interlocutory injunction was to remedy the same.
injunction should be rejected; granted to restrain a trade o The D were not satisfied with
o If P failed the trial, any loss union from unlawfully the remedial works done by
caused to the D by the grant of persuading Ps employee to the P and refused to issue the
injunction could be adequately support te Day if Action Certificate of Practical
compensated by the P? which is a political strike and Completion.
o If both answers are affirmative, thus inducing Ps employee to o As such, the P could not claim
then interlocutory injunction may breach the contract of payment under the bank
be granted; employment. guarantee.
o If there is doubt as to the o It was clear that the defendant o The P filed for an injunction to
sufficiency of the respective was acting unlawfully restrain the D from entering
remedies in damages available o If the injunction was refused, the project site without the
to either party or to both, then the P would suffer plaintiff's written consent and
the the question of the balance the HC allowed the application.
unquantifiable damage
of convenience becomes The D appealed.
whereas if it was granted, the
relevant. o Held,
o Balance of convenience doesnt union would suffer no harm
save political embarassment. o In the instant case, the learned
clearly favour either party, the
o It was in the interest of the High Court judge did not follow
preservation of status quo will
members and of the public these steps at all but
come into play.
that the injunction be granted. considered them all together,
Relative strength of each partys o The BOC is in favor of P. which was wrong.
case is a factor to be considered as a o Since the first step had not
last resort and the injunction will be Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd v been crossed, there was no
granted when the strength of one Chase Perdana Bhd need to consider other matters
partys case is disprpotionate to that o The P was employed to relating to the balance of
of the other. (Ref: Pekeliling construct a commercial and convenience and the measures
Triangle Sdn Bhd v Chase
apartment complex in KL. calculated to preserve status
Perdana Bhd) o After the issuance of notices quo as elaborated by the
by D specifying the major judge.
 o The court satisfied that if the o The injunction was granted by in which the ejector must
plaintiff succeeds at the trial it the court. allow him access and
will be adequately o The applicant thereafter made occupation to the
compensated by an award of the present application to premise.
damages for the loss that will discharge the injunction o the balance of convenience
be sufferred by P as a result of granted to the respondent. favours the respondent rather
the defendants' continuing o Held, appeal was dismissed. than the applicant.
refusal of issuance of CPC. o there was serious question to to discharge the
o Hence, the application for the be tried injunction might have the
injunctions should have been the respondent/ plaintiff effect of depriving the
refused, no matter how strong was at that very moment sub-tenant of the
the plaintiff's claim appeared in danger of being forcibly peaceful possession and
to be at that stage. ejected from his home, to enjoyment of his home,
wit, the premises, by the which is subject to the
Yeop Mah Ee v. Kuan Kum agents or servants of HLF. Act, then this is likely to
Chiew & Anor o Damages would not be an be more serious than the
o The respondent was occupying adequate remedy prejudice which would be
the ground floor front portion he was tricked into caused to the owners HLF
of certain premises of which signing the agreement by reason of the
the applicant was the where there is no continuance of the
registered proprietor. provision for the payment injunction.
o The applicant and HLF (Hong of the compensation. It is my opinion,
Leong Finance) forcibly tried to Even though there is therefore, that the
demolish the back portion of compensation,the remedy balance of convenience
the premises which the is till inadequate. clearly favours the sub-
respondent was also using. Because, sub-tenant tenant rather than HLF.
o The respondent therefore could, have gone back on
sought an ex parte his word and insisted Other Special Factor
interlocutory injunction to upon the statutory
prevent the demolition by the protection given him
applicant. under the Rent Act 1966
-Lord Diplock in AC concluded that If the plaintiff makes out a UEM and the gov applied to
other special factors may have to prima facie case, the court have the interim injunction set
be considered in individual cases. may grant an injunction. aside.
If it is a weak case, or is met Issues: (iii) whether he has
-a question which arise is whether
by a strong defence, the court locus standi, i.e. title to bring
these special factors are merely n
may refuse an injunction. and maintain the action
aspect of the balace of
against the government.
inconvenience, or whether they **Lord Dennig refusing the injuction Held:
justify a departre from the principles based on different grounds and did Refusal to grant the injunction
laid down in AC and a return to the not feel bounded by AC. is also consistent with para (d)
previous practice of requiring a prima and (k) of s 54 of the Specific
facie case. Examples of Special Factors:
Relief Act so that no injunction
whether P has locus standi
can be granted to "interfere
Fellowes & Sons v Fisher
The P sought to enforce a S 54(k): Where the applicant has no with the public duties of any
personal interest in the matter department of government"
covenant in restrict of trade
injunction cannot be granted nor can it be granted "where
whereby the D was not to do
the applicant has no personal
any legal work within a certain
Government of Malaysia v Lim interest in the matter".
radius.
Kit Siang Personal interest here must
Held: The covenants in
The respondent had applied mean legal interest and not
restraint of trade were a
for a declaration that the letter merely political interest.
special category. There may be
of intent issued by the gov to in this case, the respondent
many other special factors to
UEM in respect of the North could not have locus standi,
be taken into consideration in
and South Highway contract is whether as a politician, a road
the particular circumstances of
invalid. and highway user or a
individual cases.
He applied by way of ex parte taxpayer
The court has to make an
for an interim injunction
estimate of the relative
against UEM to restrain it from
strength of each partys case.
signing the contract.
Mareva Injunction
-Its name come from Mareva The P alleged that their The charterers could not be
Compania Naviera S.A. v. foreman had received secret found but there was evidence
International Bulkcarriers S.A. commissions which he had of funds at a bank in London.
although the first reported exercie invested in land and other Held: The application for an
occurred in Nippon Yusen Kaisha investments. injunction succeeded in
v. Karageorgis. They sought interlocutory restraining the charterers from
relief to prevent him dealing disposing of / removing from
-Bank Mellat v. Nikpour:
with the land. the jurisdiction of any of the
Donaldson LJ described Mareva & Held: The injunction was assets which were within the
APO as one of the laws two nuclear
refused because the money jurisdiction.
weapons.
was not that of the plaintiffs so
as to make the defendant a Mareva Compania Naviera SA
-Object : to freeze the Ds assets so
trustee. The court will not v International Bulkcarriers
as to ensure that they are not
grant an injunction to restrain SA
disposed before the judgment and
a defendant from parting with The P (the shipowners)
there will be property of the D
his assets. claimed against the D (the
availabe to satisfy the judgment.
charterers) who were outside
-A Prohibitory and Interlocutory jurisdiction, for unpaid hire and
usually applied ex-parte due to its Introduction of Mareva damages for repudiation of a
urgent nature. Injunction charter party.
Meanwhile they believed that
-can be found in s.51 of SRA Introduce by Lord Denning in: there is a grave danger that
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v the moneys in the bank in
Karageorgis & Anor London will disappear, so they
The Pre- Mareva Position The P co had chartered a ship applied for an injunction to
to the D. restrain the disposal of those
An injunction could not be issued to
P claimed for a large sum of money which are now in the
restrain a debtor from parting with
his property: unpaid hire and a strong prima bank.
facie case made out.
Lister & Co. v Stubbs
 Held: The cour will grant an a Have cause of action; -in pari materia with = S45 of the
injunction to protect a person b Have good arguable case; Supreme Court of Judicature
who has legal / equitable right. c Make full & frank disclosure of (Consolidation) Act 1925 (UK)
This applies to a creditor who all material matters;
d Satisfy court that the
has a right to be paid the debt
defendant has assets;
owing to him, even before he Creative Furnishing Sdn Bhd v
e Provides grounds for believing
has established his right by
that there is real risk that the Wong Koi
getting judgment for it. o the court had laid down the
defendant will deal with the
If it appears there is a danger
assets; four elements that the
that the debtor may dispose of f Give undertaking as to plaintiff must essentially fulfil
his assets so as to defeat it, damages before Mareva Injunction
the court has jurisdiction in a could be granted:
proper case to grant an
interlocutory judgment so as i.) The plaintiff must have a
to prevent him disposing of cause of action which the
those assets. Court has jurisdiction to hear;
In this case, the charterers
have control of the money in Position of Malaysian Law ii.)There must be a good
the bank in London and they arguable cause;
may at any time dispose of it -Para 6 of the Schedule to the
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Msia) iii.)There must be some
or remove it out of this
: Preservation of property grounds for believing that the
country.
defendant has some assets in
An injunction ought to be
-Additional powers of High Court his ownership or possession
granted to restrain the
includes power to provide for the within the jurisdiction.
charterers from disposing of
interim preservation of property the
these moneys until the trial or iv.)There must be a real
subject matter of any cause or
judgment. danger that assets will be
matter by sale or by injunction
removed from or dissipated
Guideline for obtaining Mareva within the jurisdiction.
injunction, the applicant must:
Have good cause of action which that the available assets of the o a P who obtained a Mareva
the Court has jurisdiction to hear respondent would be order on the basis of
dissipated to prejudice the fabricated evidence will have
Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul appellant's claim. to bear the costs of the
Rahman v Century Hotel Sdn It would not be proper to make application for the injunction
Bhd [1982] 1 MLJ 260 the order sought by the and the subsequent
The respondent had let the appellant. application for its discharge.
premises to the appellant to
run a recreation centre.
The respondent subsequently Good arguable case
closed the hotel business and the defendant has some assets
Chai Chup Seng Realty Sdn in his ownership or possession
informed the appellant that
Bhd V Choo Hua Sang within the jurisdiction.
there would no longer be hotel
o The plaintiff need not show
guests requiring the their
that he has a strong case so as Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul
services.
to warrant the summary Rahman v Century Hotel Sdn
The appellant claimed
judgment. Bhd [1982] 1 MLJ 260
wrongful repudiation of the
o The plaintiff too need not show The respondent had let the
contract and damages. The
that they have a strong prima premises to the appellant to
appellant sought to restrain
facie case. run a recreation centre.
the respondent from selling, o The court ruled that if plaintiff The respondent subsequently
transferring or disposing of the can show that on the available closed the hotel business and
land and building. evidence, there is a fair informed the appellant that
Held:
chance that they will obtain there would no longer be hotel
The appellant has raised a
judgment against the guests requiring the their
serious question to be tried on
defendant then the plaintiff services.
the damage he has suffered
has a good arguable case. The appellant claimed
due to wrongful repudiation of
wrongful repudiation of the
the lease agreement. (good Duty of disclosure contract and damages.
cause of action)
The appellant sought to
But there was no evidence to Bir v. Sharme
restrain the respondent from
show that there was a danger
 selling, transferring or injunction inter partes and not
disposing of the land and ex parte.
building. (has assets) The action was filed some 16
Held: months after the P first
Can Mareva Injuction be ordered
The appellant has raised a discovered the alleged
against the 3rd party?
serious question to be tried on misconduct.
the damage he has suffered Held: The fact that the Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd
due to wrongful repudiation of application is made inter o In this case, LED bought an
the lease agreement. partes may indicate that there action against Eagle Homes
But there was no evidence to is no immediate dear of Pty Ltd (EH) for breach of
show that there was a danger dissipation of assets. copyright in relation to
that the available assets of the The P failed to commence building plans.
respondent would be proceedings immediately or o EH had paid large dividends to
dissipated to prejudice the within a reasonable time may the shareholders and transfer
appellant's claim. lead to the ct not exercising its its business to another co.
It would not be proper to make discretion in favour of the P. o LED then applied for a Mareva
the order sought by the There is no real risk of the injunction against the new co
appellant. assets being dissipated or and the shareholders to
removed before judgment. prevent them from dealing
The application of the P co with their dividends.
a real danger that assets will be o The shareholders objected on
must fail.
removed from or dissipated the ground that they were not
within the jurisdiction. parties to the original dispute,
the dividends received by
Best Electronics Sdn Bhd v Give undertaking as to damages
them were not property of the
Chen Li Yeng [1997] 1 CLJ Supp
-P must give an undertaking as to co, and that the Mareva order
572
The P co alleged that the D damages, in case he fails in his claim should be confined to the cos
or the injunction turns out to be assets.
had misappropriated co funds
unjustified o Held,
and applied for a Mareva
o Relying Frigo v Culhaci: The
purpose of a Mareva order is
 to preserve the status quo, not from Eagle Homes (not the in England, irrespective of
to change it in favour of the rest of their assets). whether the defendant had
plaintiff. The function of the o Additionally, Ultra Modern is assets in England.
order is not to provide a restrained from dealing in The English court has
plaintiff with security in anyway in the business name unlimited jurisdiction in
advance for a judgement that "Eagle Homes", but its assets personam against any person
he hopes to obtain and that he are not frozen. who is properly made a party
fears might not be satisfied; to proceedings.
nor is it to improve the
position of the plaintiff in the
event of the defendants
Babanaft International Co SA
insolvency. Can Mareva Injunction be
v Bassatne
o The correct proposition is that ordered against asset not in the
The P obtained judgment
a court may only grant a jurisdiction?
against two Lebanese
freezing order against third
Derby & Co v Weldon [1989] 1 nationals who lived mainly
parties in circumstances in
All ER 1002 outside the United Kingdom.
which:
The D in this case argued that When the D failed to satisfy
That party holds power of
it was a precondition that the the judgment, the plaintiffs
disposition over assets of
D had some assets within the obtained an injunction which
potential judgment debtor
jurisdiction of the ct for the restrained the D from dealing
(i.e. bank) or
The third party may be granting of a Mareva with their assets outside the
injunction. jurisdiction.
obliged to contribute funds
As the D did not have assets in Held: An injunction was
to help satisfy judgment
England, it submitted that the granted over the Ds foreign
debt (for example, a
court had no jurisdiction to assets but it was made clear
guarantor).
o According to this formulation, grant the worldwide injunction. that the injunction did not
in this case, freezing orders Held: A pre-judgment Mareva affect the rights of 3rd party.
injunction could be granted in It is an order made in
can be made against the
Appellants in respect of the relation to assets worldwide in personam and had no effect
dividends which they received the course of litigation pending on third parties except to the
 extent the order is enforced by 4. Judge should take into account destruction of evidence before an
the courts of states in which the application of ordinary inter partes application.
the Ds assets are located. principles of international law
- It allows the Ps solicitor to enter
Post judgment injunction. Such before granting world wide the Ds premises for inspecting
an order would more readily Mareva relief. documents and chattels which are
be made against assers vital for the Ps case.
abroad than in a pre-
judgemenal case.
Other Limitation
Anton Piller KG v
-Max. sum frozen to be specified (Z Manufacturing Process Ltd
Conclusion: Ltd. v. A and Others) The respondent was the
appellants agent receiving
1. World-wide Mareva order can -Ordinary living expenses and other
confidential information of the
now be ordered but only legitimate expenses to be allowed.
appellants business.
against the D himself and not The respondent had been in
any 3rd parties; secret communication with
other companies.
2. Babanaft Proviso should make
The appellant feared that the
it clear that the Court was not
details of their new product
seeking to exercise an
might be forwarded to the
exorbitant jurisdiction, or the
competitors.
Derby proviso could now be
The appellant commenced ex
adopted. Anton Piller Order parte proceedings seeking an
3. A P must give an undertaking injunction and court order to
-Mandatory injunction
that he will not seek to enforce permit entry to the
the order in a foreign Ct -Ex parte respondents premises to
without first obtaining leave search and remove all
from the first Ct (original -In personam confidential information owned
country) by the appellants.
-The purpose of an Anton Piller order
is to prevent the removal or
 Held: The injunction and order Lian Keow Sdn. Bhd v C two books and obtained an
were granted. Paramjothy & Anor [1982] 1 MLJ Anton Piller order against the
The rationale for an ex parte 217 D.
application be made is The P claimed that they were Held: In a copyright
explained: if the D is beneficial owners of a piece of infringement complaint, prima
forewarned, there is a grave land and that the D was facie evidence of ownership in
danger that vital evidence will holding the said land in trust the copyright is sufficient to
be destroyed, and the ends of for the benefit of the P. justify asking for and being
justice can be defeated. The plaintiffs applied an ex given an Anton Piller order.
If the D do not give permission parte Anton Piller order to
to the P for entry and enter the premises of the D EMI Records v Kudhail
inspection, they are guilty of and to take into custody those [1985] FSR 36
contempt of court. documents which were The P sought injunctive relief
essential evidence in the on an ex parte application
action. against the D and other
Conditions for granting an Anton
Held: The Anton Piller order unnamed persons in respect of
Piller order, the P must show:
was granted as the P had alleged infringements of its
(a) An extremely strong prima proved a strong prima facie copyright and for passing off.
facie case; case that the D held the said Held: A search order was
(b) Very serious potential or actual land in trust for the P, there granted against a single D as
damage to the plaintiff; was a serious danger of the representative of all
(c) Clear evidence that the first defendant destroying the distributors, even though the
defendant is in possession of trust deed and the relevant identity of many of them was
incriminating materials; and files relating to the land. unknown.
(d) That there is a real possibility
that they may, unless Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd v
restrained, destroy such Cahaya Surya Buku dan Alat Privilege against self-
material before making of inter Tulis incrimination
partes application The P contended that the D
Rank Film Distributors Ltd v
had infringed their copyright in
Video Information Centre
 The P claimed copyright incrimination and refuse to
infringement, and obtained supply information and to
Anton Pillar orders. disclose documents that may
Held: The privilege against assist in a criminal prosecution
self-incrimination was capable against them.
of being invoked.
The test is as to whether there **S 132 of Evidence Act 1950: A
is a real and appreciable risk witness shall not be excused from
of criminal proceedings being answering any question relevant to
taken against the witness. the matter in issue in any suit upon
The D were entitled to assert the ground that the answer would
the privilege against self- incriminate him.