A Mareva injunction requires proof of a good arguable case, real risk of asset dissipation, and full disclosure, none of which were sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

[1] Three enclosures were heard before this Court on 28 November 2018:

i. Enclosure 80 is the Plaintiffs ex-parte application for injunction and other reliefs against the 2nd to the 5th Defendants upon various terms set out in the application;

ii. Enclosure 93 is the 5th Defendants application pursuant to O 32 r 6 and/or O 45 r 11 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC ") to discharge and set aside the ex-parte order ("ex-parte order") granted by this Court dated 24 October 2018; and

iii. Enclosure 98 is the 2nd to the 4th Defendants application pursuant to O 29 r 1 (2A) and/or O 32 r 6 and/or O 42 r 13 ROC to set aside the ex-parte order and further other reliefs.

[2] This Court granted order in terms of encls 93 and 98 on 28 November 2018. On the same date encl 80 was dismissed and the ex-parte order against the 2nd to 5th Defendants were discharged and set aside. The reasons now follow.

Brief Background/Facts

[3] At the outset, the present suit is cognate to an ongoing suit namely Suit No: 22NCC-216-07/2015 ("the 1st suit") also brought by the Plaintiff herein against 20 defendants sometime around July 2015. The trial in the 1st suit commenced in 2016 and is currently ongoing before this Court where the Plaintiff has closed its case on 8 September 2017 and the 1st defendant therein by the name of Henry Foo Tseh Wan ("Henry Foo") had concluded his evidence on 15 November 2018. The ongoing trial of the 1st suit is scheduled to continue in April 2018.

[4] In the 1st suit, the Plaintiff is claiming that it has been a victim of what it called, the "Henry Foo Scheme" which is said to be orchestrated by Henry Foo, the 1st defendant therein who was the Plaintiffs Senior Manager in its Johor Bharu office at the material time. The 1st suit was lodged against all the defendants therein on the ground that they have defrauded the Plaintiff by trading goods which is alleged to be fake super engineering plastics which resulted into a loss amounting to RM179,744,989.92 suffered by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has carried out laboratory testing on the samples of the different products delivered by its suppliers and found that the samples of 40 products are of fake quality when the Plaintiff had contracted to purchase high quality plastics known as super engineering plastics. Henry Foo is stated to have been involved in creating fake warehouse and customers stamps and to creating fake documents as well as giving instructions to the Johor Bharu employees (the individual defendants in the 1st suit) to create the fake documents.

[5] The Plaintiff commenced the present suit on 2 February 2018 and was initially fixed before the Kuala Lumpur High Court NCC 4. On 10 July 2018, the Kuala Lumpur High Court NCC4 granted in favour of the Plaintiffs application to transfer the present suit before this Court. Approximately 8 months after the commencement of the present suit, and soon after the transfer application was allowed, the Plaintiff filed the present application vide encl 80 leading to the granting of the ex-parte order on 24 October 2018.

The Parties

The Plaintiff

[6] The Plaintiff, Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd is a company incorporated in Malaysia. The Plaintiff is an international trading house and carries out the business of inter alia import, export and domestic businesses involving products such as automotive, plastic and chemical, machinery and metals. The Plaintiff was incorporated in Malaysia in 1970 and is a subsidiary of Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan. Toyota Tsusho Corporation is listed on the Toyota and Nagoya Stock Exchange and operates through more than 936 companies in 74 countries worldwide. The Toyota Tsusho Group of companies is a