JUDGMENT

Kenneth St James JC:

Prelusion

[1] The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against a few of the defendants. The Mareva injunction was enforced. The affected defendants were each prohibited from disposing or dealing with their own assets up to approximately RM1m, which is the amount of the plaintiff's claim against each of them. Those affected defendants applied to set aside the ex parte Mareva injunction. Should the ex parte Mareva injunction be set aside?

[2] Also, the plaintiff's ex parte application for the Mareva injunction- Enclosure 5-was made inter partes, so that those defendants could be heard in an inter partes hearing. Should the Mareva injunction be granted inter partes?

The Parties

[3] The plaintiff sues the 1st defendant (Teo) for breaches of statutory duty and fiduciary duty, and for conspiracy to injure. The plaintiff sues the other defendants for dishonest assistance and for conspiracy to injure.

[4] The affected defendants in these proceedings are the 7th defendant: Leader Food Sdn Bhd (Leader Food), and the 8th defendant: Taha Food Sdn Bhd (Taha Food).

[5] I use these abbreviations here, for the ease of reference, because these were the abbreviation