Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MIMS CAREER SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by the plaintiff regarding the mareva injunction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. requirements for post-judgment mareva injunctions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. analysis of the flawed nature of the application. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. examination of the legal requirements for pre-judgment mareva injunctions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. assessment of the risk of asset dissipation. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. analysis of the implications for the 4th defendant. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. final conclusion and dismissal of the application. (Para 53) |
Introduction
[1] This is the plaintiff's application in encl 3 for a Mareva injunction against the 1st to 4th defendants ("this Application" or "Enclosure 3").
[A] Salient Background Facts
[2] The parties are not in dispute regarding the essential factual background. The plaintiff obtained an arbitral award against the 1st to 3rd defendants ("Principal Defendants") on 16 March 2020 ("the Award"), which was subsequently enforced/registered as a judgment of the court on 7 December 2021 ("Enf
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
