Nova Mulia Development Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 679065-U Lim Yuet Sin (No. KP: 611215-07-5206)

Nova Mulia Development Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 679065-U Lim Yuet Sin (No. KP: 611215-07-5206)

Mareva relief was not granted because plaintiff failed to prove a real risk of dissipation; although the amended pleadings disclosed a bona fide serious issue and the balance of convenience did not favour one party unequivocally, damages were an adequate and quantifiable remedy for the plaintiff’s primary monetary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PA-22NCvC-44-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nova Mulia Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Lim Yuet Sin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Case Number
PA-22NCvC-44-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Related Claims (amended to Include Conspiracy, Unjust Enrichment, Fraud) / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction (order 29 R.2)
Outcome
application for interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Mareva Injunction, Preservation of Property, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Amendment of Pleadings, Adequacy of Damages Vs Equitable Relief
Equity Tort Contract Property Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunction Mareva Injunction Preservation of Property +4 more

Source-derived case record

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

Nova Mulia Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Lim Yuet Sin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Related Claims (amended to Include Conspiracy, Unjust Enrichment, Fraud) / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction (order 29 R.2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Mareva injunction was justified by real risk of dissipation of assets
  2. 2 Whether an order for preservation of the specific property under Order 29 r.2 should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the amended pleadings disclose a bona fide serious issue to be tried

Ratio Decidendi

Mareva relief was not granted because plaintiff failed to prove a real risk of dissipation; although the amended pleadings disclosed a bona fide serious issue and the balance of convenience did not favour one party unequivocally, damages were an adequate and quantifiable remedy for the plaintiff’s primary monetary claim, therefore the discretionary preservation injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

application for interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Interim injunction application (enclosure 39) dismissed
  • Mareva injunction not granted; preservation order refused on discretionary grounds