Chai Jook Kew (Menyaman sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Si Mati, Chai Yen Chong) 1. ) Chai Jen Chiew (Didakwa Sebagai Wakil Diri Harta Pusaka Chai King Chong, Si Mati Menurut Perintah Mahkamah Bertarikh 30.9.2020) 2. ) Chai Fook Chong 3. ) C

Chai Jook Kew (Menyaman sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Si Mati, Chai Yen Chong) 1. ) Chai Jen Chiew (Didakwa Sebagai Wakil Diri Harta Pusaka Chai King Chong, Si Mati Menurut Perintah Mahkamah Bertarikh 30.9.2020) 2. ) Chai Fook Chong 3. ) C

Application dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show urgency or to make a genuine attempt to execute the judgment, adduced no solid evidence of risk of dissipation, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-66-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (administrator of Estate of Chai Yen Chong): Chai Jook Kew; Defendant (representative of Estate of Chai King Chong): Chai Jen Chiew
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 March 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-66-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Mareva Injunction (post Judgment) / Interlocutory Application Following Judgment (post Judgment Mareva Application)
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Asset Preservation, Post Judgment Relief, Balance of Convenience, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Injunctions Equity Probate and Estates Mareva Injunction Asset Preservation Post Judgment Relief Balance of Convenience +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chai Jook Kew

Plaintiff (administrator of Estate of Chai Yen Chong)

Chai Jen Chiew

Defendant (representative of Estate of Chai King Chong)

Procedural Posture

Civil Mareva Injunction (post Judgment) / Interlocutory Application Following Judgment (post Judgment Mareva Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Mareva injunction should be granted post-judgment
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff established a good arguable case on the merits
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's assets

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show urgency or to make a genuine attempt to execute the judgment, adduced no solid evidence of risk of dissipation, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for Mareva injunction dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay costs of RM3,000