MAREVA INJUNCTION – FREEZING OF BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE JUDGMENT

Q: One of my staffs who were entrusted with the company’s money absconded with our money. She has a bank account where the money misappropriated was placed in. There is a grave danger he/she will transfer out the money as soon as he/she knows legal action is taken against him/her. What can we do?

  • The company can take out a Mareva injunction to freeze his/her bank account pursuant to Para 6 Schedule of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) reading together with Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). 

Q: What is the criteria to get a Mareva injunction?
3 main criteria the court will consider when granting a Mareva injunction as follows:
– The plaintiff (i.e. the company) has a good arguable case;
– The defendant’s (i.e. the staff) assets are within the jurisdiction of the             Malaysian court; and
– There is a risk of dissipation of the asset before judgment.

Q: What is a good arguable case?
It means the company has some evidence of wrongdoings (i.e. misappropriation or breach of fiduciary duty in this case) and there is a fair chance judgment will be obtained against the staff. The company does not have to show a strong prima facie case.

Q: What is a breach of fiduciary duty?
When a special relationship of fiduciary and principal is established (e.g. a relationship of trust when the staff is appointed and entrusted with the company’s money), the staff has a fiduciary duty not to benefit from any unauthorized gain from that relationship. If he/she has benefited, there is a breach of fiduciary duty. He/she is required to compensate or restore the unauthorized gain back to the company.

Q: What do you mean defendant assets are within the jurisdiction of the Malaysian court?
If the bank account is in Malaysia, then the assets are within the jurisdiction of the Malaysian court. The Malaysian court does not have jurisdiction over assets or monies in overseas.

Q: How do I justify risk of dissipation of assets because the company would not have statement of her bank account whether the money misappropriated is still there or not?
A conduct of the staff which is lacking in probity and honesty would give risk to risk of dissipation. However, in some circumstances, physical evidence of actual payment out from the staff account would help establishing risk of further dissipation.

Recent Post

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »

JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LOCUS STANDI

This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION REMEDIES UNVEILED: DECIPHERING CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES AND LEGAL BALANCE

This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?