The court establishes that a Mareva injunction requires a good arguable case, proof of assets in jurisdiction, and risk of asset dissipation.

Table of Content
1. criteria for granting mareva injunction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
2. court's findings on good arguable case (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. risks of asset dissipation (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. risk of asset dissipation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

(iv) secara alternatif dibawah Bill of Exchange Act 1949 kerana kegagalan menjelaskan cek sekuriti apabila dikemukakan untuk bayaran.

Alasan Permohonan

[12] Plaintif-plaintif menyatakan berdasarkan fakta-fakta yang dinyatakan di dalam afidavit sokongan plaintif-plaintif bagi permohonan plaintif-plaintif untuk injunksi mareva, plaintif-plaintif telah memenuhi prinsip di mana injunksi mareva boleh dibenarkan iaitu:-

(i) mempunyai suatu kes yang baik untuk dihujahkan (good arguable case) terhadap defendan-defendan;

(ii) defendan-defendan mempunyai aset dalam bidang kuasa; dan

(iii) terdapat risiko aset defendan-defendan mungkin dilupuskan sebelum penghakiman.

Undang-Undang

[13] Adalah undang-undang mantap seperti yang diputuskan dalam kes Mareva Compania Naveira SA v. International Bulk Carriers SA ("The Mareva) [1980] 1 All ER 213]; Zainal Abidin Haji Abdul Rahman v. Century Hotel Sdn Bhd , [1982] 1 MLJ 40; [1981] CLJ (Rep) 307; Pacific Centre Sdn Bhd v. United Engineers (Malaysia) Bhd; ; Creative Furnishing Bhd v. Wong Koi ; ; bahawa plaintif hendaklah memenuhi tiga ujian yang perlu dipertimbangkan sebelum mahkamah membenarkan injunksi mareva iaitu-

(a) plaintif mesti mempunyai "good and arguable case" terhadap defendan;

(b) terdapat keterangan jelas bahawa defendan mempunyai aset dalam bidang kuasa mahkamah; dan

(c) plaintif hendaklah menunjukkan dengan bukti yang jelas bahawa defendan berkemungkinan melupuskan aset-asetnya sebelum penghakiman mahkamah.

[14] Dalam kes TSoi Ping Kwan v. Loh Lai Ngoh & Anor, , Mahkamah Rayuan melalui penghakiman mahkamah oleh Sri Ram HMR (beliau pada masa itu) menyatakan disamping tiga ujian yang perlu dipertimbangkan seperti di atas mahkamah juga perlu menimbangkan seperti dalam relif injunksi biasa iaitu sama ada keadilan menyokong pemberian mareva atau penolakannya.

[15] Dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui Abdool Kader HMP (beliau pada masa itu) dalam S & F International Ltd v. Trans Co Engineering Sdn Bhd, ; [1985] CLJ (Rep) 280 menerimapakai pernyataan Mustill J dalam Ninemia Maritime Corporation v. Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH UND CO KG [1984] 1 All ER 398 yang dipetik dalam bahasa asalnya di ms 283 seperti berikut-

"(1) before a Mareva injunction will be granted, a plaintiff must show first that he has a good arguable case, which is more than being barely capable of serious argument, but not necessarily one that the judge believes has got more than a fifty per cent chance of success, (2) Before such relief is granted the plaintiff must secondly show that there is a risk that assets will be dissipated: he must demonstrate this by solid evidence, eg, that the defendant's previous actions show his probity is not to be relied upon or that the corporate structure of the defendant infers that it is no to be relied upon, but mere proof that the defendant is incorporated abroad will not suffice: (3) in reaching its conclusion, the court should take into account the defendant's evidence as well as the plaintiff's. The English court of Appeal in dismissing an appeal by the plaintiffs in that case [1983] 1 WLR 1412; [1984] 1 All ER (at p 413) restated the principles of mareva applications and held that the jurisdiction to grant mareva injunctions was exercisable in cases where it appeared just and convenient to the court to grant the injunction, and the plaintiff had, inter alia, to show, on the evidence as a whole, that there was at least a good arguable case that he would succeed at the trial, and that a refusal of an injunction would involve a real risk that a judgment or award in his favour would remain unsatisfied because of the defendant's removal of assets from the jurisdiction or dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction".

Keputusa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document