JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

Introduction

[1] There are five applications before this Court , namely:

(a) Plaintiff's inter partes application for Mareva Injunction (Enclosure 3);

(b) Plaintiff's inter partes application for an Anton Piller Order (Enclosure 4);

(c) Defendant's application for leave to file an additional affidavit (Enclosure 25);

(d) Defendant's application to set aside the ex parte and ad interim Mareva Orders dated 5 June 2025 and 19 June 2025 (Enclosure 31); and

(e) Defendant's application for stay of the ex parte and interim Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order until the disposal of their application to set aside the said orders or the hearing of the inter partes injunction, or to vary the said orders (Enclosure 40).

[2] Both parties had filed written submissions and authorities and submitted orally to the Court on 9 September 2025. The decision is fixed for 30 September 2025, and this is the Court 's decision.

Background

[3] The 2nd Plaintiff and the defendant are directors and equal shareholders of the 1st Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs' case is that the Defendant, as Managing Director of the First Plaintiff, had abused his position and breached his fiduciary duties by misappropriating company funds and falsifying records.

[4] It is alleged that the Defendant had utilised pre-signed cheques of the Second Plaintiff to transfer substantial sums, including RM453,000.00 and further payments exceeding RM2 million, into his personal account. The Defendant is further alleged to have recorded payments from third parties as if they were loans from him, thereby creating a false indebtedness of the company and securing wrongful repayments exceeding RM1.5 million.

[5] According to the Plaintiffs, these acts were deliberate, resulted in losses exceeding RM7.5 million, and placed the First Plaintiff at risk of winding up.

[6] The Plaintiffs accordingly applied ex parte for a Mareva Injunction pursuant to O 29 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") to restrain the Defendant from dissipating or disposing of his assets in Malaysia. The orders sought included:

(a) freezing the Defendant's bank accounts, fixed deposits, shares, and real property, with specific reference to identified Public Bank Berhad accounts;

(b) restraining solicitors from transferring the balance sale proceeds of the 1st Plaintiff's business premises at Jalan Kebun Teh, Johor Bahru; and

(c) compelling the Defendant to disclose by affidavit full particulars of his assets and the status of 14 cheques totaling RM2,121,345.52 alleged to have been misappropriated.

[7] Exemptions were allowed for withdrawals up to RM10,000.00 per month for living expenses and legal costs, while third parties including Public Bank Berhad and solicitors involved were bound by the order, with any knowing breach amounting to contempt of Court .

[8] The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant had manipulated pre-signed cheques to divert funds into his personal accounts and falsified ledgers by recording payments from third parties as purported loans from him, thereby fabricating a false indebtedness.

[9] Concurrently, the Plaintiffs applied ex parte for an Anton Piller order to preserve and secure critical evidence. The order sought to authorize entry into the Defendant's premises, under the supervision of an independent solicitor, to search for and seize documents, cheque books, ledgers, and electronic devices evidencing the alleged misappropriation.

[10] Plaintiffs' application was premised on a strong prima facie case of dishonesty, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust, coupled with a real risk that the Defendant would destroy or conceal relevant documents if prior notice were given. Safeguards were incorporated, including the role of an independent supervising solicitor, limits on the scope of materials to be seized, and the Plaintiffs' undertakings in damages.

[11] On 5 June 2025, the Court allowed, both the ex parte Mareva Injunction and the Anton Piller Order. Thereaf