TEO YUN HOCK v 1. ) AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD 2. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN BHD 3. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZLI BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 4. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZRUL BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 5. ) AHMAD AZAM BIN SULAIMAN 6. ) GO AUTO SERVICES SDN BHD 7. ) GOAUTO GROUP SDN BHD 8. ) INTRO SYNERGY SDN BHD 9. ) NEXV MANUFACTURING SDN BHD 10. ) SPE FOUNDATION 11. ) ASPIRE ARENA SDN BHD 12. ) SMS AUTO WORLD SDN BHD 13. ) PHOENIX PINNACLE SDN BHD 14. ) FAROK BIN MAASOM 15. ) DATO' SHEIKH MOHAMAD SH...

wa-22ncc-70-02-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 10 March 2025 • WA-22NCC-70-02/2025

Catchwords

law on mareva injunction-sole purpose of a Mareva injunction was to prevent a plaintiff being cheated out of the proceeds of an action-For a Mareva application, there are three pre-requisites to satisfy before the court may issue a Mareva injunction-(a) the applicant must show that it has a good arguable case; -(b) that the defendants have assets within jurisdiction; and -(c) that there is a risk of the assets being removed before judgment could be satisfied.-The test for a ‘good arguable case’ is one which is more than barely capable of serious argument but not necessarily one which has to be better than 50% chance of success-lifting of corporate veil to hold persons and corporate entities liable for fraud-there subsists a long line of authority over the years in Malaysia which recognises that fraud, whether common law fraud or fraud in equity permits the court disregarding of the corporate personality-a ‘worldwide’ Mareva injunction may even be granted where the assets which are to be frozen are wholly located abroad or where some of the assets are within the jurisdiction and some are abroad-found that there was a risk of dissipation as the Court of Appeal found that there were inconsistencies in the documents and the defendant’s defence and affidavit-the defendant’s conduct was lacking in probity and honesty, thus, a real risk exists that the defendant would dissipate his assets-In determining whether there is a risk of assets being removed, lack of probity and honesty can be determining factors, in drawing a conclusion that there is such a risk of dissipation-

Practice Areas

law on mareva injunction-sole purpose of a Mareva injunction was to prevent a plaintiff being cheated out of the proceeds of an action-For a Mareva application, there are three pre-requisites to satisfy before the court may issue a Mareva injunction-(a) the applicant must show that it has a good arguable case; -(b) that the defendants have assets within jurisdiction; and -(c) that there is a risk of the assets being removed before judgment could be satisfied.-The test for a ‘good arguable case’ is one which is more than barely capable of serious argument but not necessarily one which has to be better than 50% chance of success-lifting of corporate veil to hold persons and corporate entities liable for fraud-there subsists a long line of authority over the years in Malaysia which recognises that fraud, whether common law fraud or fraud in equity permits the court disregarding of the corporate personality-a ‘worldwide’ Mareva injunction may even be granted where the assets which are to be frozen are wholly located abroad or where some of the assets are within the jurisdiction and some are abroad-found that there was a risk of dissipation as the Court of Appeal found that there were inconsistencies in the documents and the defendant’s defence and affidavit-the defendant’s conduct was lacking in probity and honesty, thus, a real risk exists that the defendant would dissipate his assets-In determining whether there is a risk of assets being removed, lack of probity and honesty can be determining factors, in drawing a conclusion that there is such a risk of dissipation-

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (20)

Case Significance

TEO YUN HOCK v 1. ) AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD 2. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN BHD 3. ) SH... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 10, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-70-02-2025). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of TEO YUN HOCK v 1. ) AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD 2. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN BHD 3. ) SH...?

TEO YUN HOCK v 1. ) AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD 2. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN BHD 3. ) SH... is a High Court decision dated March 10, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.