JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff's application is for a post judgment Mareva Injunction to prevent the defendant from dissipating his assets and money in order to escape execution of the judgment entered by the court against him.

Brief Facts

[2] The plaintiff's claim was for his deceased father's share of the proceeds of the sale of a property in Australia known as the Nutting property which was sold by the defendant's deceased father. Both the deceased were brothers.

[3] After a full trial the court allowed the plaintiff's claim on 4 September 2024 to a sum of AUD 4,429,506.67 (equivalent to RM12,181,143.34), as his deceased father's share of the proceeds of the sale of the Nutting property with an interest of 5% per annum until full settlement.

[4] In this application for Mareva Injunction the plaintiff contends that the defendant has assets and monies in Malaysia as well as overseas. The defendant is also set to receive a sum of money from the Insolvency Department.

[5] The plaintiff contends that although the defendant has means he has not attempted to pay the judgment sum thereby reflecting a conduct of avoiding payment of the judgment sum.

Application Under Order 29 Rules 1 And 2 Of The Rules Of 2012

[6] The plaintiff's application is made by virtue of O 29 rr 1 and 2 of the Rules. For ease of reference this provision is reproduced here:

(1) An application for the grant of an injunction may be made by any party to a cause or matter before or after the trial of the cause or matter, whether or not a claim for the injunction was included in that party's originating process, counterclaim or third party notice, as the case may be.

(2) Such application may be made by a notice of application supported by an affidavit and where the case is one of urgency, may be made ex parte.

(2A) The affidavit in support of an application made ex parte must contain a clear and concise statement of:

(a) the facts giving rise to the claim;

(b) the facts giving rise to the application for interim injunction;

(c) the facts relied on to justify the application ex parte, including details of any notice given to the other party or, if notice has not been given, the reason for not giving notice;

(d) any answer by the other party (or which he is likely to assert) to the claim or application;

(e) any facts which may lead the court not to grant the application ex parte or at all;

(f) any similar application made to another Judge, and the order made on that application; and

(g) the precise relief sought.

(2B) Unless earlier revoked or set aside, an interim injunction obtained on an ex parte application shall automatically lapse twenty-one days from the date it was granted.

(2BA) An ex parte interim injunction must be served within seven days of the date of the order, and the court when granting the order must fix a date to hear the application inter partes within fourteen days from the date of the order.

(2C) A court shall not grant an injunction on an ex parte application if the effect is to stop the holding or progress of a meeting of a body corporate, a society, an association, a union, an organization, a club or any other body of persons however constituted or named.

(3) The plaintiff may not make such an application before the issue of the originating process except where the case is one of urgency, and in that case:

(a) the injunction applied for may be granted on such terms, if any, as the court thinks fit; and

(b) if the originating process is not issued within two days of the granting of the injunction, or such other period as the court thinks fit, the court shall, on application by a defendant, discharge the injunction.

(4) An order for interim injunction shall be in Form 53. 2. Detention, preservation of subject matter of cause or matter (O 29 r 2)

(1) On the application of any party to a cause or matter, the court may make an order for the detention, custody or preservation of any property which is the subject matter of the cause or matter, or as