Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preservation of property

Legal area

Court

2 Oct 2024

MINISO WINKY (M) SDN BHD REDLAND USJ SUMMIT PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-614-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-614-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo by granting an interim injunction because, if refused, the Defendant could deal with the property to the detriment of the Plaintiff and cause irreparable harm; accordingly the Plaintiff's application for an interim injunction was allowed to preserve the Building pending determination of the dispute.
1 Aug 2024

KENG HENG GOLDTECH SDN BHD 1. ) NIKS KB JEWEL 2. ) KEHL EMPIRE SDN. BHD. 3. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG SA SDN. BHD. 4. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG PP SDN. BHD. 5. ) EMAS HARGA KASIH SAYANG SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai EMAS KASIH SAYAN

Citation

JA-22NCvC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Plaintiff established a good arguable case that title to the gold remained with the Plaintiff until full payment (per invoice clause), demonstrated a real risk of dissipation given dishonoured/stopped cheques and the fungible nature of gold, and established sufficient evidence that defendants acted collectively as a single economic unit; accordingly the Mareva injunction and interim preservation order were justified and must be maintained; applications to set them aside were dismissed.
7 Feb 2023

TAN SWEE CHOO 1. ) NG CHUN FOO 2. ) NG CHANG PENG

Citation

DA-22NCvC-10-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-10-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

All three prerequisites for appointment were satisfied: plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie claim as administrator, evidence showed partnership assets were at risk due to management vacuum, related-party transactions and altered accounts, and plaintiff would be prejudiced if appointment delayed; objections to the proposed receiver's suitability were speculative and insufficient, therefore appointment was warranted and granted with costs payable from partnership assets subject to taxation.
10 Nov 2021

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

Citation

PA-22NCvC-44-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-44-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
5 Oct 2020

Karunamoorthy a/l Ramasamy 1. Hariharan a/l Subramaniam (NRIC No: 780316-10-6347) 2. Asokan a/l Palaniandy (NRIC No: 791211-08-5563) 3. Ezy Group Berhad [formally known as EZYFX Berhad Registration No: 201601042792 (1213734-P)]

Citation

PA-22NCvC-25-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-25-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although there were serious questions to be tried, the claimed sums were ordinary debts under an alleged investment/loan agreement, the defendants were not shown to be fiduciaries or constructive trustees and no identifiable specific fund was established; given the allegations of illegality and the risk of oppressive consequences to defendants if forced to produce monies, the balance of convenience and judicial discretion required refusal of the preservation order.
27 Aug 2020

HENG LOON PENG (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) HENG WEE PIN (NRIC NO.: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JA-22NCVC-28-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-28-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the affidavits the plaintiff disclosed a bona fide serious issue, established irreparable injury and that damages were inadequate; the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff and the defendant failed to adequately contradict key averments (including company registration timing), therefore the court allowed the plaintiff's application for interim injunction (Enclosure 4) and dismissed the defendant's application (Enclosure 19) with costs in the cause, permitting plaintiff access to remove his property and restraining the defendant from removing or interfering pending trial.

Malaysia Case Law

MINISO WINKY (M) SDN BHD REDLAND USJ SUMMIT PROPERTIES SDN BHD

KENG HENG GOLDTECH SDN BHD 1. ) NIKS KB JEWEL 2. ) KEHL EMPIRE SDN. BHD. 3. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG SA SDN. BHD. 4. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG PP SDN. BHD. 5. ) EMAS HARGA KASIH SAYANG SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai EMAS KASIH SAYAN

TAN SWEE CHOO 1. ) NG CHUN FOO 2. ) NG CHANG PENG

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

Karunamoorthy a/l Ramasamy 1. Hariharan a/l Subramaniam (NRIC No: 780316-10-6347) 2. Asokan a/l Palaniandy (NRIC No: 791211-08-5563) 3. Ezy Group Berhad [formally known as EZYFX Berhad Registration No: 201601042792 (1213734-P)]

HENG LOON PENG (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) HENG WEE PIN (NRIC NO.: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)