1. ) Lee Kai Wuen 2. ) Low Nang Hiang Lee Yee Wuen

1. ) Lee Kai Wuen 2. ) Low Nang Hiang Lee Yee Wuen

The Court allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the High Court's interlocutory Mareva injunction because, although the respondent had demonstrated a good arguable case of misappropriation/oppression, the essential second ingredient — a real risk of dissipation of assets — was not established by evidence and could not be presumed from the circumstances; accordingly the Mareva injunction was improperly granted.

Citation
J-02(IM)(NCC)-1315-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
1st Appellant / 1st Defendant: Lee Kai Wuen; 2nd Appellant / 2nd Defendant: Low Nang Hiang; Respondent / Plaintiff: Lee Yee Wuen; 3rd Defendant / Company: Kien Yiap Trading Sdn Bhd
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 May 2021
Case Number
J-02(IM)(NCC)-1315-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Companies Act 2016 Oppression Claim and Interlocutory Mareva Injunction / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (interlocutory Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court interlocutory Mareva injunction set aside; stay of setting aside granted for three weeks until 20 June 2021; costs awarded to appellants
Legal Topics
Oppression Under Companies Act 2016, Mareva Injunction, Interlocutory Injunctions, Dissipation of Assets, Directors' Duties, Restitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Injunctions Oppression Under Companies Act 2016 Mareva Injunction Interlocutory Injunctions Dissipation of Assets +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Kai Wuen

1st Appellant / 1st Defendant

Low Nang Hiang

2nd Appellant / 2nd Defendant

Lee Yee Wuen

Respondent / Plaintiff

Kien Yiap Trading Sdn Bhd

3rd Defendant / Company

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Concerning Companies Act 2016 Oppression Claim and Interlocutory Mareva Injunction / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (interlocutory Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interlocutory Mareva injunction should have been granted
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had a good arguable case of misappropriation/oppression
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of dissipation of the appellants' assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the High Court's interlocutory Mareva injunction because, although the respondent had demonstrated a good arguable case of misappropriation/oppression, the essential second ingredient — a real risk of dissipation of assets — was not established by evidence and could not be presumed from the circumstances; accordingly the Mareva injunction was improperly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court interlocutory Mareva injunction set aside; stay of setting aside granted for three weeks until 20 June 2021; costs awarded to appellants

Orders

  • High Court order dated 15 September 2020 granting interlocutory Mareva injunction set aside
  • Setting aside stayed for three weeks until 20 June 2021 to enable respondent to seek leave to appeal to the Federal Court