WA-22NCVC-567-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

WA-22NCVC-567-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted the Mareva injunction because the plaintiff satisfied the three essential requirements: he demonstrated a good arguable case to recover RM3,037,500; evidence showed the relevant funds were held in local accounts within the court's jurisdiction and there was no credible proof funds were transferred abroad; and there was a real risk of dissipation given defendants' conduct and failure to produce records. The balance of convenience favored preserving assets pending trial and the plaintiff gave the required undertaking as to damages.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-567-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Tan Sri A Rahim bin Tamby Chik; Defendant/appellant: The Rain Maker Mgmt Sdn Bhd; Defendant/appellant: My Premier Trustee (Malaysia) Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 December 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-567-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (mareva Injunction Application) / Interim Injunction / Appeal Reasons
Outcome
Mareva (freezing) injunction granted in favour of the respondent (plaintiff); court found plaintiff entitled to freezing relief over RM3,037,500 held or controlled by defendants within jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Freezing Order, Trustee Duties, Dissipation of Assets, Agency and Misrepresentation
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Commercial Law Injunctions Banking Law Mareva Injunction Freezing Order Trustee Duties +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Sri A Rahim bin Tamby Chik

Plaintiff/respondent

The Rain Maker Mgmt Sdn Bhd

Defendant/appellant

My Premier Trustee (Malaysia) Berhad

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil (mareva Injunction Application) / Interim Injunction / Appeal Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff had a good arguable case on the claim for RM3,037,500
  2. 2 Whether the assets to be frozen were within the court's jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of dissipation of assets warranting a Mareva injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the Mareva injunction because the plaintiff satisfied the three essential requirements: he demonstrated a good arguable case to recover RM3,037,500; evidence showed the relevant funds were held in local accounts within the court's jurisdiction and there was no credible proof funds were transferred abroad; and there was a real risk of dissipation given defendants' conduct and failure to produce records. The balance of convenience favored preserving assets pending trial and the plaintiff gave the required undertaking as to damages.

Court Disposition

Mareva (freezing) injunction granted in favour of the respondent (plaintiff); court found plaintiff entitled to freezing relief over RM3,037,500 held or controlled by defendants within jurisdiction

Orders

  • Freezing/Mareva injunction granted restraining defendants from dissipating or dealing with assets up to RM3,037,500 pending further order of the court
  • Defendants to file and serve an affidavit within 7 days disclosing bank accounts, monthly/annual bank statements from 27.8.2018 to date, details of transactions concerning RM3,037,500 and particulars of assets (as per order dated 23.9.2021)