BUMI ARMADA NAVIGATION SDN BHD vs MIRZA MARINE SDN BHD (ENCL NOS 1 & 5)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 55

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BUMI ARMADA NAVIGATION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MIRZA MARINE SDN BHD (ENCL NOS 1 & 5) – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Lavinia Kumaraendran,Mavinthra Jothy ,Respondent Advocate: Hanif Idris,Fadzil Manan,Shahir Razak

Table of Content
1. a mareva injunction can be granted to prevent asset dissipation before arbitral proceedings. (Para 1 , 21 , 24)
2. interim measures are judicially discretionary and do not interfere with arbitration process. (Para 36 , 39 , 49)
3. the court must ensure not to cause undue hardship to the defendant while protecting plaintiff's rights. (Para 60 , 63 , 67)

JUDGMENT

Wong Kian Kheong JC:

(Court Encl Nos 1 And 5)

A. Introduction

[1] This case discusses the Court's power to grant:-

(a) a Mareva injunction before the commencement of arbitral proceedings under s 11(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 ( AA ). If a Mareva injunction is granted, this judgment will discuss whether the Court has the power to provide that a party whose assets have been frozen by a Mareva injunction, be allowed to use part of the party's frozen assets to pay for the party's:-

(i) reasonable and ordinary operational expense; and

(ii) legal advice and representation for the suit in question and potential arbitration; and

(b) a mandatory order under s 11(1) AA to compel a party subject to a Mareva injunction, to affirm an affidavit to disclose all information regarding the party's assets (Mandatory Disclosure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 55

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURBUMI ARMADA NAVIGATION SDN BHD – AppellantVersusMIRZA MARINE SDN BHD (ENCL NOS 1 & 5) – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BUMI ARMADA NAVIGATION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MIRZA MARINE SDN BHD (ENCL NOS 1 & 5) – Respondent