The threshold for granting a Mareva Injunction includes demonstrating a real risk of asset dissipation and that the assets are within the court's jurisdiction.

[1] The 1st and 2nd Respondents' application is for the following orders:-

(i) an order restraining the Petitioner, Portcullis Trustnet (Labuan) Ltd and the 3rd Respondent, whether by themselves or through their directors, officers, nominees or agents whosoever, from uplifting, transferring, disposing, removing and/or dissipating the monies USD821,034.09 (as per the Statement of Account dated 8 July 2016) ("the monies") held in a time deposit by Portcullis Trustnet (Labuan) Ltd pursuant to a Consent Order dated 8 September 2015;

(ii) an order restraining the Petitioner, Portcullis Trustnet (Labuan) Ltd and the 3rd Respondent, whether by themselves or through their directors, officers, nominees or agents whosoever, from entering into any transactions, arrangement or agreement involving the monies;

(iii) an order restraining the Petitioner, Portcullis Trustnet (Labuan) Ltd and the 3rd Respondent, whether by themselves or through their directors, officers, nominees or agents whosoever, from making any payment of the monies to the Petitioner or the 3rd Respondent and/or their servants, agents or any other party except with the express authority of this Honourable Court;

(iv) that the Petitioner, Portcullis Trustnet (Labuan) Ltd and the 3rd Respondent, shall forthwith within three days provide to the First and Third Respondents the latest copy of the Statement of Accounts stating the current balance of the monies; and

(v) costs.

[2] The grounds of the application are:-

(i) that there is a real risk that the monies held in time deposit would be uplifted, removed and/or dissipated;

(ii) that the petitioner has unilaterally declared that he was no longer bound by the Consent Order which has not been set aside by this Court;

(iii) that the orders sought are to preserve the monies held in time deposit to prevent dissipation of the same so that they are available for distribution; and

(iv) that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction prayed for in this matter.

[3] Having considered the application and the submission of the parties, this Court has allowed the Respondents' application with costs.

The Salient Facts

[4] Upon a petition filed by the Petitioner under s 181 of the Companies Act 1965 , the Court has ordered a compulsory sale of the majority shareholding in the 3rd Respondent to the Petitioner on 29 July 2011. Before that date, the Petitioner was a minority shareholder holding 25% equity in the 3rd Respondent, whilst 75% of the equity was held by the 2nd Respondent through the 1st Respondent.

[5] The cut - off date for the valuation of the shares was fixed at 29 July 2011 and the Court of Appeal also ordered that the 1st and the 2nd Respondents are entitled to 75% of the retained profits for dividend distribution from 29 July 2011 up to the date of the transfer of shares to the Petitioner, which took place on 30 January 2015.

[6] On 8 September 2015, the parties have entered into a Consent Order, providing for the mechanics of the payment out of the 75% of the retained profits in the 3rd Respondent for the period of 29 July 2011 to 30 January 2015 pursuant to the Court of Appeal Order. The payment out was premised on the outcome of the Petitioner's application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court, which was dismissed on 20 September 2016.

[7] Clause 3 of the Consent Order provides that a sum of not less than US$695,000.00 to be deposited by the 1st Respondent in a time deposit. Vide a letter dated 5 October 2015, the Petitioner's Solicitor confirmed that a sum of US$817,140.54 was placed in a time deposit. An updated time deposit slip on 25 July 2016 confirmed that the amo