Malaysia-Mareva injunction

In Kwan Ngen Wah & Ors v Techbay Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] MLJU 987, it was held that:-

"...[3] The purpose of a Mareva injunction is to prevent a plaintiff being cheated out of the proceeds of an action, should it be successful, by a defendant transferring his assets abroad or dissipating his assets within the jurisdiction. The remedy was not intended to give a plaintiff priority over those assets, or to prevent a defendant from paying his debts as they fell due, or to punish him for his alleged misdeeds, or to enable a plaintiff to exert pressure on him to settle an action: PCW (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd v Dixon and Another [1983] 2 All ER 158.

[4] In an application for a mareva order the applicant has to satisfy the court (i) that the applicant has a strong arguable case; (ii) that the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction; and (iii) that there is a real danger that the defendant would dissipate its assets, whether by removal or disposal, as to render them unavailable or untraceable with the intention of stultifying any judgment or with the effect of defeating a claim: Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd v Mona Tech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 217. A strong arguable case means that the plaintiff has a fair chance of obtaining judgment against the defendant but need not satisfy the court that the plaintiff's case is so strong as to warrant summary judgment nor even a strong prima facie case to obtain a Mareva order: Biasamas Sdn Bhd v Kan Yan Heng [1998] 4 MLJ 1...."

Popular Posts