PH 385 SDN BHD JPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD

PH 385 SDN BHD JPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real risk that the 1st Defendant would dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement of any future judgment; allegations of dishonesty were not supported by evidence of intent to dissipate and the Mareva injunction requisites were not satisfied, therefore the application for Mareva...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-21NCVC-37-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: PH 385 SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: JPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: YAP KIM SOON; 3rd Defendant: FOONG SAU HAR; 4th Defendant: MESSRS ISHARIDAH, HO, CHONG & MEONON; 5th Defendant: GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA; 6th Defendant: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 July 2020
Case Number
WA-21NCVC-37-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (contract/tax Dispute) / Interlocutory Application for Mareva Injunction Decided by High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for Mareva injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Real Property Gains Tax Refund, Mareva Injunction, Termination Clause, Risk of Asset Dissipation, Undertaking as to Damages
Contract Tax Law Equity Civil Procedure Real Property Gains Tax Refund Mareva Injunction Termination Clause Risk of Asset Dissipation +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PH 385 SDN BHD

Plaintiff

JPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD

1st Defendant

YAP KIM SOON

2nd Defendant

FOONG SAU HAR

3rd Defendant

MESSRS ISHARIDAH, HO, CHONG & MEONON

4th Defendant

GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA

5th Defendant

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (contract/tax Dispute) / Interlocutory Application for Mareva Injunction Decided by High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff has a good arguable case on entitlement to RPGT refund
  2. 2 Whether defendant has assets within jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk that defendant will dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement of judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real risk that the 1st Defendant would dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement of any future judgment; allegations of dishonesty were not supported by evidence of intent to dissipate and the Mareva injunction requisites were not satisfied, therefore the application for Mareva injunction was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application for Mareva injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application for Mareva injunction dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay costs of the application assessed at RM35000 to the Defendant