ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD

ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD

Application dismissed because granting the Mareva injunction or ordering deposit would conflict with an extant Court of Appeal stay, the Land is not the subject matter of the arbitration, the plaintiff failed to prove the required elements for a Mareva injunction including credible evidence of dissipation, and the interim relief would not assist or support the arbitration but risk circumventing appellate orders.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-20-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd; Defendant: ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-20-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (mareva Injunction Application) / Interlocutory Application Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Asset Preservation, Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions, Stay of Enforcement, Deposit of Preserved Funds
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Construction Law Injunctions Adjudication (cipaa) Mareva Injunction Asset Preservation Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (mareva Injunction Application) / Interlocutory Application Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Mareva injunction should be granted to preserve the Land pending arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the Preserved Amount should be deposited to solicitors pending arbitration
  3. 3 Whether the application would conflict with an existing Court of Appeal stay order

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because granting the Mareva injunction or ordering deposit would conflict with an extant Court of Appeal stay, the Land is not the subject matter of the arbitration, the plaintiff failed to prove the required elements for a Mareva injunction including credible evidence of dissipation, and the interim relief would not assist or support the arbitration but risk circumventing appellate orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Enclosure 1 dismissed with costs
  • Alternative prayer to deposit the Preserved Amount into joint solicitors' account refused