Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Good arguable case

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2026

AEROTREE DEFENCE & SERVICES SDN. BHD 1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-54-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-54-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court followed the line of authority in Sabil Mulia and Petrojasa and held that section 29 Government Proceedings Act 1956 does not bar the grant of an interim injunction against the Government or its agencies where the applicant demonstrates a good arguable case, damages are not an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favours preservation of the status quo; accordingly an interim injunction was granted restraining the Defendants from applying the RM1,870,000.56 bank guarantee pending disposal of the substantive proceedings.
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.

Malaysia Case Law

AEROTREE DEFENCE & SERVICES SDN. BHD 1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

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

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