MEPCOM POLYMER SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. : 852162-K) 1. LEE YOKE PING (NRIC NO.: 8303224-14-5138) 2. KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA

MEPCOM POLYMER SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. : 852162-K) 1. LEE YOKE PING (NRIC NO.: 8303224-14-5138) 2. KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA

On the evidence of persistent and growing discrepancies between payroll summaries and bank payments, the plaintiff established a good arguable case; the 1st Defendant admitted assets within jurisdiction; her admitted complicity in manipulating accounts and lack of probity gave rise to a real risk of dissipation. Therefore the Mareva injunction was justified and was granted as amended.

Citation
JA-22NCVC-67-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: MEPCOM POLYMER SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: LEE YOKE PING; 2nd Defendant: KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Case Number
JA-22NCVC-67-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Mareva Injunction (inter‑parte Then Inter‑partes Hearing)
Outcome
Application for Mareva injunction allowed as amended
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Asset Freezing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misappropriation of Funds, Risk of Dissipation
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Equity Injunctions Employment Law Trusts and Fiduciary Obligations Fraud Mareva Injunction Asset Freezing +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MEPCOM POLYMER SDN BHD

Plaintiff

LEE YOKE PING

1st Defendant

KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Mareva Injunction (inter‑parte Then Inter‑partes Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's assets are within jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets before judgment

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence of persistent and growing discrepancies between payroll summaries and bank payments, the plaintiff established a good arguable case; the 1st Defendant admitted assets within jurisdiction; her admitted complicity in manipulating accounts and lack of probity gave rise to a real risk of dissipation. Therefore the Mareva injunction was justified and was granted as amended.

Court Disposition

Application for Mareva injunction allowed as amended

Orders

  • Mareva injunction granted against the 1st Defendant in the terms set out in Enclosure 3 as amended