KERK HAN MENG 1. ) LEE YU MENG 2. ) KUA CHIN WEE 3. ) WONG KOK KHEONG 4. ) SIM CHIN HU 5. ) CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD

KERK HAN MENG 1. ) LEE YU MENG 2. ) KUA CHIN WEE 3. ) WONG KOK KHEONG 4. ) SIM CHIN HU 5. ) CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD

The application for interim freezing and proprietary injunctions (Enclosure 273) was dismissed because, although the applicant had a good arguable case and the company had assets, there was no solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets sufficient to justify a Mareva or broad proprietary injunction; the pivot to a proprietary injunction did not overcome evidentiary deficiencies and interim relief must be principled and directly linked to the final remedy.

Citation
WA-24NCC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kerk Han Meng; 1st Defendant: Lee Yu Meng; 2nd Defendant: Kua Chin Wee; 3rd Defendant: Wong Kok Kheong; 4th Defendant: Sim Chin Hu; 5th Defendant: CJ Polymers Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 December 2025
Case Number
WA-24NCC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (companies Act) Minority Oppression/winding Up Proceedings / Interim Injunction Application (enclosure 273) Decision on Urgent Freezing/proprietary Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed; injunctions refused
Legal Topics
Mareva Freezing Order, Proprietary Injunction, Minority Oppression, Winding Up Jurisdiction, Directors' Duties and Removal
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Equity Mareva Freezing Order Proprietary Injunction Minority Oppression Winding Up Jurisdiction +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kerk Han Meng

Plaintiff

Lee Yu Meng

1st Defendant

Kua Chin Wee

2nd Defendant

Wong Kok Kheong

3rd Defendant

Sim Chin Hu

4th Defendant

CJ Polymers Sdn Bhd

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (companies Act) Minority Oppression/winding Up Proceedings / Interim Injunction Application (enclosure 273) Decision on Urgent Freezing/proprietary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant has a good and arguable case
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of the company's assets
  3. 3 Whether a Mareva freezing order is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim freezing and proprietary injunctions (Enclosure 273) was dismissed because, although the applicant had a good arguable case and the company had assets, there was no solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets sufficient to justify a Mareva or broad proprietary injunction; the pivot to a proprietary injunction did not overcome evidentiary deficiencies and interim relief must be principled and directly linked to the final remedy.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; injunctions refused

Orders

  • Enclosure 273 dismissed and no interim Mareva or proprietary injunction granted
  • Costs awarded: RM30,000.00 to CJ Polymers Sdn Bhd