Back
Next 
2012 MarsdenLR 838
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
MERITYIELD SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DOUBLE HOUSE MARKETING SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Case No: BKI-22-243/10-2012]
A Mareva Injunction requires a good arguable case, disclosure of all material facts, and sufficient evidence for breach of fiduciary duty; failures in these aspects can lead to dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Mareva Injunction - Requirement for good arguable case, existence of assets within jurisdiction, and risk of asset dissipation - Plaintiff applied for Mareva Injunction and tracing order which were subsequently discharged. (Paras 5 and 6)
(B) Breach of fiduciary duty - Plaintiff alleged that defendants, including stakeholder, acted in self-interest and failed to account for trust funds, but court found insufficient evidence for such claims. (Paras 3 and 6)
(C) Disclosure obligations - Plaintiff must make full disclosure of material facts during ex-parte applications; failure to do so can lead to dismissal of injunction. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed a Mareva Injunction due to a dispute arising from a 'double sale' of land where the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant settled disputes over proceeds from the sale. The Plaintiff alleged breach of trust by the 4th Defendant related to a trust fund for settlement, but the court found discrepancies in their claims regarding fiduciary duty.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the Plaintiff did not establish a good and arguable case for the Mareva Injunction due to inadequate disclosure of material facts and questions over the nature of the Mekagreen Fund.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the Plaintiff could demonstrate a good arguable claim and whether the 4th Defendant held a fiduciary duty as a 'stakeholder solicitor.'
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Plaintiff's failure to disclose the shareholder's agreement and clarify the trust fund's nature undermined their case for the injunction.
Result: Mareva Injunction and tracing order discharged.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of mareva injunction and underlying disputes (Para 1) |
[1] The Plaintiff in this case had obtained a Mareva Injunction and a tracing order against all the Defendants by way of an ex-parte application on 30th October 2012. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th Defendants had since applied to set aside or vary the set order vide a Notice of application. The Plaintiff however, has applied to maintain the said orders during the inter parte hearing.
