The court established that a mareva injunction requires a good arguable case, assets within jurisdiction, and a risk of asset removal, especially in cases of alleged fraud.

Leong Wai Hong J:

Application For Mareva

Introduction

[1] This is an ex-parte application [Enclosure 6] dated 14 January 2025, but according to the CMS system filed on 5 February 2025], by the plaintiff for a mareva injunction against nineteen defendants.

[2] To avoid confusion when looking at the cause papers, I should say at the outset that the suit particulars when filed had changed subsequently.

[3] The reason is as follows. When it was filed in the civil division it was titled (Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No.: WA-22NCVC-28-01/2025. When it was transferred to the commercial division by a High Court order dated 24 January 2025 [Enclosure 15], the suit particulars were changed to (Bahagian Dagang) Writ Saman No.: WA-22NCC-70-02/2025.

[4] I heard the mareva injunction application inter-parte s. All the defendants except for the 9th defendant were represented by one set of solicitors and counsel. The 9th defendant was represented by its own solicitors and counsel. I do not need to say more of the 9th defendant as ultimately, I didn't grant a mareva injunction against the 9th defendant and no appeal was lodged by the plaintiff against this order of mine.

[5] For the mareva injunction the plaintiff filed an Executive Summary [Enclosure 34 - The Plaintiff's Executive Summary (In Support of encl 6 for a Mareva Injunction - Inter-Parte s) and a written submission [Enclosure 32 - The Plaintiff's Written Submissions (In Support of encl 6 for a Mareva Injunction - Inter-Parte s)].

[6] The defendants other than the 9th defendant filed an Executive Summary [Enclosure 38 - Executive Summary Of The Defendants (Except Ninth Defendant) [Enclosure 6: Application For Mareva Injunction] and a reply written submission [Enclosure 37 - Written Submission Of The Defendants (Except Ninth Defendant) [Enclosure 6: Application For Mareva Injunction] which the plaintiff responded with a reply written submission [Enclosure 46 - The Plaintiff's Written Submissions In Reply (All Defendants Except The 9th Defendant) (In Support of encl 6 for a Mareva Injunction)].

[7] On 11 March 2025, after having gone through carefully the claim against each defendant one by one, I had allowed the mareva application against only the 1st to 4th, 6th and 14th defendants.

[8] Besides reducing the number of defendants enjoined by the mareva injunction, I also reduced the sum that is enjoined by the mareva from RM 4,103,359.94 to RM3,532,000.00. The sealed order can be seen in encl 68.

[9] In essence, I found that there is a good arguable case from the plaintiff to justify the grant of a mareva injunction against the 1st to 4th, 6th and 14th defendants. I also found there is a risk of the assets being removed before judgment could be satisfied.

The 3rd And 14th Defendant Appealed To The Court Of Appeal

[10] On 10 April 2025, the 3rd defendant Sheikh Mohamad Azli Bin Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal and the 14th defendant Farok Bin Maasom have appealed to the Court of Appeal.

[11] The 1st, 2nd,4th and 6th defendants did not file any appeal. The plaintiff also did not file any appeal. For these reasons my Grounds of Judgment here will be confined mainly to the plaintiff's case against the 3rd and 14th defendants only.

[12] In my Grounds of Judgment, the defendants will be identified as D1 or 1st defendant, D2 or 2nd defendant, etc.

Facts Of The Case

[13] The facts that I shall set out below are gleaned from the plaintiff's supporting affidavit encl 5 English translation at paras 4 to 42 and from the plaintiff's written submission encl 32 at paras 4 to 22.

[14] All the defendants other than the 9th defendant filed one joint reply affidavit affirmed on their behalf by D5 in encl 25 Afidavit Jawapan defendan-defendan. They also filed one Written Submission of The Defendants (Except Ninth Defendant) in encl 37.

[15] At the outset I should say that the reply affidavit and Written Submission of The Defendants (Except Ninth Defendant) are very economical in their response to the facts averred by the p