Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MIMS CAREER SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH & ORS (ENCLS 3 & 41) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's application for mareva injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. nature of the application debated. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. differences between pre- and post-judgment mareva injunctions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. application's fundamental procedural flaw. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. analysis of good arguable case. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. discussion of risk of asset dissipation. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. assessment of plaintiff's claims on asset dissipation. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. balance of convenience considerations. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 9. concerns about the 4th defendant's situation. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 10. final decision dismissing the application. (Para 53) |
Introduction
[1] This is the Plaintiff's application in encl 3 for a Mareva injunction against the 1st to 4th Defendants ("this Application" or "Enclosure 3").
A] Salient Background Facts
[2] The parties are not in dispute regarding the essential factual background. The Plaintiff obtained an arbitral award against the 1st to 3rd Defendants ("Principal Defendants") on 16 March 2020 ("the Award")
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
