Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dissipation of assets

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

1. ) YONG YEH FONG 2. ) CHAN KWANG HAU 3. ) KEE JOO EE 4. ) TEE WEI KANG 5. ) FOO KHAR YI 6. ) CHONG SIAU XIAN 7. ) HONG TEIN HWEE 8. ) TAN ZHENG HAO 9. ) KELVIN TING CHENG TAT 10. ) YANG WEN BIN 11. ) LIEW PUA KANG 12. ) CHEN XIAO HUI 13.

Citation

WA-22NCC-219-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-219-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the court found plaintiffs have a good arguable case of fraudulent misrepresentation supported by the defendant's messages and partial admissions; there were sufficient grounds to believe the defendant has assets (including a prior RM100,000 payment) and objective indicators of dishonesty and risk of dissipation; the undertaking and built-in procedural allowances were adequate; therefore a Mareva injunction freezing assets up to USD400,000 was justified and ordered with costs.
6 Aug 2025

NIRMALA A/P RAMASAMY Baramaguru A/l Mariappen

Citation

N-02(W)-78-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

W
Case number

N-02(W)-78-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred by applying outdated emphasis on 'joint effort' and by failing to give adequate weight to AW's non‑monetary homemaking contributions under the amended s76 LRA, and by accepting RH's limited salary evidence despite lifestyle and extensive property holdings suggesting understatement; therefore AW is entitled to 30% of the 15 contested matrimonial real estate assets, the gratuitous transfers to RH's mother constituted unlawful dissipation and must be returned for sale/division or buyout, and maintenance for children and AW must be increased to r…
3 Jul 2025

CHOONG KAI YONG 1. ) ELYZA'S CONCEPT SDN. BHD. 2. ) YONG KWAI FONG

Citation

WA-A52NCC-1236-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-1236-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear real risk of dissipation of defendants' assets, had not made full and frank disclosure, and had taken the dining table reducing the claim materially; defendants operated lawfully and held assets exceeding RM2 million; on balance of convenience the injunction would cause greater prejudice to defendants, therefore the Mareva injunction was refused and costs were awarded to defendants.
28 Apr 2025

1. ) DATO' SRI ZUL AZMI BIN ABU HUSSIN 2. ) XSPEC RESOURCES SDN BHD DATO' AHMAD FARIS BIN ABDUL HALIM

Citation

WA-22NCvC-180-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-180-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva injunction and a discovery order because the Defendant demonstrated a good arguable case (given the Deed of Trust and sequence of events), assets of the 1st Plaintiff exist within the jurisdiction, and there is a real and demonstrated risk of dissipation (diversion of RM37,100,000 received from PDRM to third parties and subsequent summary judgment by MDVB). The balance of convenience favored preserving assets to avoid injustice, and discovery was necessary to trace the funds and aid execution of the injunction.
13 Dec 2024

1. ) MALAYSIA AUTOMOTIVE, ROBOTICS AND IOT INSTITUTE 2. ) A2Z TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. 1. ) DATO TS MOHAMAD MADANI BIN SAHARI 2. ) ASPIRE KNOWLEDGE SDN. BHD. 3. ) SANDOSH A/L J N ANANDAN 4. ) VASUDEVAN A/L ARUMUGAM 5. ) MUGILAN KRISHNARAJAH A/L

Citation

WA-22NCC-442-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-442-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Ex parte freezing and proprietary orders were set aside and plaintiffs' inter partes applications dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish a serious issue to be tried on fraud‑based causes of action, failed to demonstrate risk of dissipation necessary for Mareva relief, delayed unreasonably in seeking equitable relief, and there was non‑disclosure of material facts at the ex parte hearing.
17 Oct 2024

EVANGELION GENERATIONAL MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. 1. ) WAN JINN WOEI 2. ) WONG HUI LING

Citation

WA-22NCC-162-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-162-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Mareva injunction application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate by evidence a real risk of dissipation of assets; the plaintiff's delay and conduct (including filing ex parte five months after commencement) undermined the claim and suggested mala fides or an intent to secure funds rather than preserve assets; alleged prior disposal of property did not justify inferring a present risk and freezing assets would be oppressive.
29 Aug 2024

VIKING LIFE - SAVING EQUIPMENT (M) SDN BHD 1. ) MUHAMMAD YUSRAN BIN AHZAM BAHDARI 2. ) MOHAMED FAIZAL BIN KOSU MOHAMED 3. ) ACE SWIFT LOGISTICS SDN BHD 4. ) KURSHER ENGINEERING SDN BHD 5. ) MOHAMED ZABIDI BIN RAMLI 6. ) MUHAMMAD NOR HAIQAL

Citation

BA-22NCC-58-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-58-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held plaintiff has a good arguable case and defendants have assets within jurisdiction, but plaintiff failed to prove a real risk of dissipation or irreparable harm by solid evidence and did not justify the broad freezing and Norwich relief sought; accordingly the interlocutory applications for Mareva injunction and Norwich Pharmacal order were dismissed with costs in the cause.
13 Mar 2024

Tengku Reza Shah Bin Tengku Chaidzir Shah Bangsar Heights Pavilion Sdn Bhd

Citation

JA-22NCvC-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held plaintiff established a good arguable case (fraud in transfers supported by prior High Court findings), defendant has assets in jurisdiction and there is a real risk of dissipation (development, advertising, deposits); plaintiff had necessary liquidator and insolvency sanctions; therefore the ex‑parte Mareva injunction should be maintained and the defendant's application to set it aside is dismissed with costs.
9 Feb 2024

PEMPETISYEN WILBUR TOCK BING HENG 1. ) TOCK KHEE SONG 2. ) YEW LEE BLASTING SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-949-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-949-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On balance of probabilities the petitioner established prima facie evidence of likely winding-up, a shareholder deadlock and a real risk of dissipation of company assets by the sole director; therefore appointment of an interim liquidator was warranted to preserve the status quo pending determination of the winding-up petition.
27 Oct 2023

MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-14-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-14-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed: the appeal would not be rendered nugatory because the matter could be reheard or directed by the Court of Appeal; the alleged jurisdictional error concerned interpretation of a settlement agreement and is for arbitration or is not a jurisdictional error; there was no evidence of imminent liquidation or asset dissipation and there was prima facie financial support and a letter of comfort from the holding company; prior non‑compliance with a conditional stay amounted to abuse of process. No special circumstances existed to justify a stay.