Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proprietary injunction

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2025

KERK HAN MENG 1. ) LEE YU MENG 2. ) KUA CHIN WEE 3. ) WONG KOK KHEONG 4. ) SIM CHIN HU 5. ) CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for interim freezing and proprietary injunctions (Enclosure 273) was dismissed because, although the applicant had a good arguable case and the company had assets, there was no solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets sufficient to justify a Mareva or broad proprietary injunction; the pivot to a proprietary injunction did not overcome evidentiary deficiencies and interim relief must be principled and directly linked to the final remedy.
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.
22 Mar 2024

OTM SOLUTION SDN BHD 1. ) AZLAN BIN MUHAMAD 2. ) PERENCANA DINGIN SDN BHD 3. ) JANA ANUGERAH SDN BHD 4. ) SYUKOR BIN MD SAYUTI 5. ) PRIDE OFFSHORE SDN BHD 6. ) MC MARINE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 7. ) MOHD HALIMI BIN ABD RAHMAN

Citation

BA-24NCC-161-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-161-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff had made the necessary disclosures under Order 29 r1(2A), the relief sought was properly characterized as a proprietary injunction to preserve monies legally and beneficially belonging to the plaintiff, the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief, and therefore the interim proprietary freezing injunction was continued; the defendants' application to set aside (Enclosure 29) was dismissed with costs RM8,000 subject to allocatur.

Malaysia Case Law

KERK HAN MENG 1. ) LEE YU MENG 2. ) KUA CHIN WEE 3. ) WONG KOK KHEONG 4. ) SIM CHIN HU 5. ) CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD

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

OTM SOLUTION SDN BHD 1. ) AZLAN BIN MUHAMAD 2. ) PERENCANA DINGIN SDN BHD 3. ) JANA ANUGERAH SDN BHD 4. ) SYUKOR BIN MD SAYUTI 5. ) PRIDE OFFSHORE SDN BHD 6. ) MC MARINE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 7. ) MOHD HALIMI BIN ABD RAHMAN