A Mareva injunction requires the plaintiff to demonstrate a strong arguable case, the presence of assets within jurisdiction, and a real risk of asset dissipation.

[1] This was an application by the Plaintiff for an interlocutory Mareva injunction in encl 3 ("this Application").

[2] The 2nd Defendant had been declared bankrupt and as such the Plaintiff only proceeded with this Application against the 1st and 3rd Defendants.

The Plaintiff's Case

[3] The Plaintiff's case against the Defendants is based on the following causes of action:

i) Breach of contract against the 1st Defendant;

ii) Misrepresentation and fraud against all the Defendants;

iii) Conspiracy to injure by fraudulent misrepresentation against all the Defendants; and

iv) Creation of a constructive trust in respect of all the Defendants and for the relief of tracing.

[4] The 2nd Defendant was a director of the 1st Defendant from 6 September 2010. The 3rd Defendants was a director of the 1st Defendant from 1 September 2016 until 21 September 2020. The 2nd Defendant is the majority shareholder of the 1st Defendant holding 99,999 shares in the 1st Defendant out of 100,000 shares. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are brothers.

[5] The 1st Defendant, through the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, represented to the Plaintiff as follows:

i) That the 1st Defendant, through its agents, employees and/or contractors including specifically the 2nd and 3rd Defendant, would set up a facility known as Hospital Pakar Wanita & Kanak-kanak Kasih Putrajaya at Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan;

ii) Through Form 2 dated 7 March 2017 issued by the Director General of the Ministry of Health Malaysia ("Ministry of Health") entitled "Kelulusan untuk Menubuhkan atau Menyenggarakan Kemudahan atau Perkhidmatan Jagaan Kesihatan Swasta", that the 1st Defendant was given a valid approval by the Ministry of Health ("the Approval") and the Approval would be used by the 1st Defendant to set up the hospital (which would be known as "Hospital Pakar Wanita & Kanak-kanak Kasih Putrajaya") ("the Hospital");

iii) That the 1st Defendant only needs RM3,750,000.00 for it to execute the setting up/incorporation and the operation of the Hospital and that after the 1st Defendant receives the RM3,750,000.00 the 1st Defendant, including the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, would set up/incorporate and/or operate the Hospital on or before 22 February 2022.

("Representations")

[6] In support of the Representations the 2nd Defendant had given to the Plaintiff the document entitled "Kelulusan untuk Menubuhkan atau Menyenggarakan Kemudahan atau Perkhidmatan Jagaan Kesihatan Swasta" dated 7 March 2017 with the Serial No 001703.

[7] Relying on the Representations the Plaintiff paid a total of RM3,750,000.00 to the 1st Defendant and thereafter entered into a "Investment Agreement" dated 1 March 2019 with the 1st Defendant ("Agreement"). Preamble A of the Agreement states as follows:

"Prior to the execution of this Agreement a total sum of RM3,750,000/- (Investment Amount) was paid by the Investor to the Hospital Operator for the purpose of setting up a new specialist hospital for women and children at Putrajaya with the breakdown and conditions as follows:

(i) RM1,750,000/- is designated as a soft loan without any security or interest but subject to a repayment as follows:

RM100,000/- every 3 months commencing January 2019 until full repayment

(ii) RM2,000,000/- designated for investment for a 20% equity to be given to the Investor in the Hospital (as stipulated in Recital B)"

[8] The Plaintiff later discovered that the Representations were not true in that:

i) Despite that the 1st Defendant had received the RM3,750,000.00, the 1st Defendant, through its agents, employees and/or contractor including specifically 2nd Defendant and 3rd Defendant, did not set