1. ) Yeoh Eng Kong 2. ) Tan Chooi Hah v 1. ) Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe 2. ) Genting Development Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Stanley Ng Bond V 4. ) Tetuan CY NG & Barry 5. ) Tetuan Kevin & Co 6. ) Chong Yoon Fork 7. ) Foong Chern Yee 8. ) Tetuan Alan Lim & Salawati PIHAK TERKILAN Patrick Yeoh & Company (D3 dalam Tuntutan Balas)

Case Significance

Illustrates the requirements for and practical administration of a Mareva freezing injunction, including a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, full and frank disclosure, and fortification of the applicant's cross-undertaking in damages.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application by the first plaintiff for a Mareva injunction to restrain the third defendant from dealing with or dissipating his assets pending the disposal of the action. The application was brought under Order 29 rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court 2012, sections 50 and 51 of the Specific Relief Act 1950, and section 25(2) read with the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The court's task was to apply the settled requirements for a freezing order: whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case, whether there was a real risk that the defendant's assets would be dissipated so as to frustrate any judgment, and whether the plaintiff had made full and frank disclosure without suppressing material facts. Having considered those matters, the court allowed the application, granting an injunction restraining the third defendant, whether by himself or through officers, agents or nominees, directly or indirectly, from disposing of, dealing with, assigning, transferring or diminishing the value of specified assets within or outside the jurisdiction, including a named double-storey semi-detached house. The court dealt pragmatically with the mechanics of the order: the third defendant offered a cash sum to top up a shortfall, which the court directed be placed with his solicitors by a fixed date, and arrangements were made for a fixed-deposit sum and a watch to be dealt with through the solicitors. On the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages, the court accepted a Bungsar Hill property belonging to the first plaintiff as the subject of the fortification, a second property being unsuitable because it was the subject matter of another suit. The application was allowed with costs of RM4,000.00. The judgment is a useful illustration of the requirements for and practical administration of a Mareva injunction, including the good arguable case, the real risk of dissipation, full and frank disclosure, and the fortification of the applicant's cross-undertaking in damages.