Our Legal Associates, Aiesyah Mohd Mustafa Kamal and Adilah binti Abdul Wahap, under the guidance of Litigation Partners Idza Hajar Ahmad Idzam and Nan Muhammad Ridhwan Rosnan from our Litigation Practice Group, successfully resisted an appeal before the Court of Appeal of Malaysia in Putrajaya on behalf of Malaysia Airlines Berhad (“MAB”).
The Appellant, Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn. Bhd. (the operator of Lincoln University College), sought an injunction to restrain MAB from delivering vacant possession of the premises. This case was particularly notable for its complex four-tier tenancy structure, where the landlord sat at the top of the chain and MAB was the principal tenant. The Appellant occupied the lowest tier as a sub-sub-tenant, with no direct contractual relationship with the landlord or even MAB. Despite the expiry of its sub-sub-tenancy in October 2016, the Appellant remained in occupation, while MAB continued to be contractually bound to the landlord to deliver vacant possession of the same premise.
The High Court in Kuala Lumpur dismissed the Injunction Application. The Appellant proceeded to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
On 18.3.2026, a three-member bench led by Justice Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan affirmed the High Court’s decision, unanimously dismissing the appeal with costs of RM30,000.00. The Court of Appeal accepted our submissions that:
- The Appellant was, at all material times, an unlawful occupier, as its sub-sub-tenancy had expired in October 2016 and no direct tenancy agreement with the landlord had ever been concluded;
- The Appellant’s sub-tenancy could not survive the determination of the Master Tenancy Agreement between the landlord and MAB, and MAB with its sub-tenant;
- The absence of a direct contractual relationship between MAB and the Appellant did not preclude MAB from seeking vacant possession, as its contractual obligation to the landlord to deliver vacant possession is a continuing obligation which survives termination of the main tenancy; and
- There was no serious issue to be tried, and the balance of convenience lay firmly in favour of refusing the injunction.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety with costs.
The team was further supported by members of the Litigation Practice Group, namely Muhammad Hibri Nazim, Haidhar Hamzi, Saif Aslam, and Muhammad Danial (pupil-in-chambers).
