Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asset preservation

Legal area

Court

16 Jul 2025

1. ) GOLDEN PLUS HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) GOLDEN PLUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 3. ) GOLDEN PLUS (BVI) PTE LTD 4. ) SRI SERDANG SDN BHD 5. ) PARADIZE BAZAAR SDN BHD 6. ) VENICE HEIGHTS SDN BHD 7. ) HANPOPULAR SDN BHD 8. ) YANFULL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Citation

WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found special circumstances based on the combination of (a) the irreparable harm that would follow forced liquidation of long‑standing family residence and private company shares, (b) the insufficiency of applicants' liquid assets making deposit of the full judgment sum impracticable, and (c) adequate protection for the plaintiffs afforded by identified assets exceeding the judgment sum, continuing injunctions and solemn undertakings; accordingly a conditional stay of execution of the monetary orders was granted subject to the specified undertakings.
13 Jun 2025

1. ) Yeoh Eng Kong 2. ) Tan Chooi Hah 1. ) Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe 2. ) Genting Development Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Stanley Ng Bond V 4. ) Tetuan CY NG & Barry 5. ) Tetuan Kevin & Co 6. ) Chong Yoon Fork 7. ) Foong Chern Yee 8. ) Tetuan Alan Lim & Sa

Citation

WA-22NCvC-652-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-652-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held P1 had a good arguable case on conspiracy and entitlement to the payment sums, assets of D3 within jurisdiction were undisputed, and P1 demonstrated a real risk of dissipation through a pattern of conduct; there was no established contravention of s22C(1)(d) Act 242; accordingly a Mareva injunction and disclosure order were justified and granted against the 3rd Defendant with specified asset restraints and deposit requirements.
15 May 2025

1. ) DIRK JOHANN QUINTEN 2. ) SIMONE QUINTEN 3. ) WOLFGANG ALBERT DORNER 4. ) HEIDRUN GERTRUD DORNER YEOH TEEN EAM

Citation

BA-22NCvC-468-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-468-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs established a good arguable case on the contract and entitlement to repayment on termination, demonstrated the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction (bank account and prior land title), and adduced evidence that the defendant dissipated property after the ex parte Mareva order; therefore the Mareva injunction application was justified and is allowed with costs.
24 Mar 2025

Chai Jook Kew (Menyaman sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Si Mati, Chai Yen Chong) 1. ) Chai Jen Chiew (Didakwa Sebagai Wakil Diri Harta Pusaka Chai King Chong, Si Mati Menurut Perintah Mahkamah Bertarikh 30.9.2020) 2. ) Chai Fook Chong 3. ) C

Citation

WA-22NCvC-66-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-66-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show urgency or to make a genuine attempt to execute the judgment, adduced no solid evidence of risk of dissipation, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.
8 Aug 2024

1. ) P. PONNAMAL A/P PONNIAH 2. ) PREMA A/P ACHU 3. ) DEBORAH ANN RODRIGO 4. ) Y.M.CHE ENGKU MAHIRAH BT ABDULLAH 5. ) GOH CHIANG BENG 6. ) ALEXANDER VINCENT 7. ) GEA BAN THONG 8. ) NG GUAT TIN 9. ) KOH KOCK KEANG 10. ) SUPRAMANIAM A/L S SHA

Citation

WA-22NCC-606-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-606-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found plaintiffs satisfied first two conditions (good arguable case and assets within jurisdiction) but failed to prove a real risk of dissipation; delay in bringing the application (15 months after suit, 3 months after media reports) and absence of solid evidence of dissipation were fatal; mareva injunction refused.
14 Dec 2023

SIM KWANG KAI, ADRIAN JOHNATHAN WONG FUTT PO PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) CHEONG MUN HONG 2. ) SIGNATURE HEALTHLAND SDN BHD 3. ) Yew Yee Tee

Citation

WA-22NCC-544-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-544-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff satisfied the first two conditions (a good arguable case and existence of assets within jurisdiction) but failed to demonstrate the third condition: there was no solid evidence of a real risk that the defendant would dissipate assets; therefore the Mareva injunction could not be granted and the application was dismissed with costs.
12 Jul 2023

TC Scaffold Industrial Sdn Bhd JSNT2 Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-163-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-163-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff established a good arguable case on unpaid rentals and transport charges, demonstrated that the defendant held assets within the jurisdiction (bank account and substantial retention monies), and proved a real risk of dissipation given foreign ownership/directors, weak finances, multiple creditor suits and imminent demobilisation; balancing convenience favoured preservation of funds. Consequently a limited Mareva injunction was justified, restraining the defendant from dealing with retention monies up to RM2,019,788.29 pending final determination.
17 Feb 2023

ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-20-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-20-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because granting the Mareva injunction or ordering deposit would conflict with an extant Court of Appeal stay, the Land is not the subject matter of the arbitration, the plaintiff failed to prove the required elements for a Mareva injunction including credible evidence of dissipation, and the interim relief would not assist or support the arbitration but risk circumventing appellate orders.
6 Feb 2020

1. ) CHONG SHAO FEN 2. ) LAI SIOW LIEN 1. ) MEHRZAD NABAVIEH 2. ) NOUSHIN GOUDARZI 3. ) DESIGNWORKS ARCHITECTS & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 4. ) MAJESTIC UNITED SDN BHD 5. ) AZMAN BIN TEH

Citation

WA-22NCVC-788/2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-788/2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that a bona fide serious issue remained because assessment of damages was pending; there was credible risk of asset dissipation given published sale advertisement and defendants' foreign status and lack of shown Malaysian assets; plaintiffs had not failed to make full disclosure; balance of convenience favoured preserving the property until assessment and full payment. Therefore the interim injunction was maintained and the application to set it aside was dismissed with costs.
1 Jan 1900

HOMA ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 1295021-W) CHEW KOK CHOON (NRIC NO.: 800914-08-5801) [BERNIAGA DI BAWAH NAMA CASON DESIGN] (NO. PENDAFTARAN JM0786342-X)

Citation

JA-22NCC-18-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-18-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff established a good arguable case, clear evidence the defendant received payments (RM2,934,016.37) and failed to pay the plaintiff RM2,787,967.97, and sufficient evidence of disappearance/risk of dissipation (police reports and affidavit material); therefore the requirements of Order 29 were met and prayers 2 and 4 of Enclosure 3 (Mareva relief) were granted with costs in the cause.