In this action, the plaintiff has filed a claim against the defendant for the sum of RM 360,227.83 and a further sum of RM375,132.16 being the amount of money owing to them for work done in respect of a certain contract for the construction of a school building in Ipoh. By a summons in chambers dated 3.11.2003 the plaintiff applied for a Mareva injunction in the following terms:-

a) Pihak Defendan sama ada secara sendiri dan/atau menerusi agen dan/atau pengkhidmatnya ditahan daripada mengeluarkan dan/atau menyebabkan apa-apa perbuatan yang boleh menghilangkan, melupuskan wang sejumlah RM360,227.83 daripada akaun Defendan di

2

Malayan Banking Berhad (Ipoh Main) bernombor 508010816281 sehingga guaman ini diputuskan secara muktamad oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;

b) Pihak Defendan sama ada secara sendiri dan/atau menerusi agen

dan/atau pengkhidmatnya ditahan daripada mengeluarkan dan/atau

menyebabkan apa-apa perbuatan yang boleh menghilangkan,

melupuskan apa-apa jumlah wang lanjutan yang dibayar kepada

Defendan oleh Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia bagi tujuan

pembayaran di bawah kontrak "Penyelenggaraan Sekolah Berasrama

Penuh Sekolah Tuanku Abdul Rahman Ipoh Secara Rundingan Terus"

daripada akaun Defendan di Malayan Banking Berhad (Ipoh Main)

bernombor 508010816281 sehingga guaman ini diputuskan secara

muktamad oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;

c) Satu Perintah Mahkamah memerintahkan Defendan membuat "discovery"

tentang pengaliran wang tersebut sekiranya didapati bahawa Defendan

telah mengeluarkan dan/atau melupuskan wang tersebut daripada akaun

Defendan yang dinyatakan di perenggan (a)'

d) Kos Permohonan ini dijadikan kos di dalam kuasa;

e) Lain-lain relif yang Mahkamah ini fikirkan adil dan suai manfaat.

This court after hearing the exparte application on 11.11.2003 gave on order in term of prayers (a), (b) and (d) above. On 1.12.2003 the application was fixed for hearing inter partes and on the application of the plaintiff., the case was adjourned to another date

3

and this court also granted an ad interim injunction to the plaintiff pending the final disposal of the application.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement dated 14.11.2002 whereby the defendant has agreed to appoint the plaintiff as a subcontractor to undertake certain construction works for the total sum of RM 1,532,000.00 (hereinafter referred to as contract price) . As the consideration to the contract, the defendant, being the main contractor was entitled to 4% of the contract sum and the balance goes to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that they have carried out the work in accordance with the scope of works as stipulated in the said agreement but has only been paid RM 735,360.00. The plaintiff now seeks to restrain the defendant from disposing the moneys in the defendant account which was paid to the defendant by the Ministry of Education who awarded the said contract to the defendant. The defendant on the other hand claims that the plaintiff has failed to carry out the works in accordance with the agreement and that the plaintiff has also refused to carry out certain remedial works ordered by the defendant. The defendant further contends that they are entitled to set off from the amount for the remedial works done by a third party at their request. From the affidavit evidence adduced, it is also established that there was a variation in the scope of work as agreed between the defendant and the Ministry of Education which saw a revision of the contract price to RM 1,164,527.78. The plaintiff claims no knowledge of this fact. Minutes of meeting between the defendant and the Ministry of Education as exhibited in Exhibit FAMN 5 in Enclosure 7 clearly proves this fact.

4

It is trite that for a Mareva injunction to be issued the requirements are:-

(i) The plaintiff must show he has a good arguable case.

(ii) The plaintiff must produce evidence that the defendant has assets within jurisdict