Summary and Facts
Sim Kwang Kai, Adrian v Johnathan Wong Futt Po [2026] 10 MLJ 642 concerned an application by the plaintiff for a Mareva injunction to freeze the defendant's assets pending trial of his claim. The plaintiff alleged the defendant had misused monies entrusted to him, had been charged with cheating, was a bankrupt and had held himself out as a lawyer.
Legal Issues
Whether the plaintiff had satisfied the three pre-conditions for the grant of a Mareva injunction.
Whether allegations of the defendant's lack of probity were sufficient to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets.
High Court’s Findings
To obtain a Mareva injunction the plaintiff had to establish three things - a good arguable case, that the defendant held assets within the jurisdiction, and a real risk that those assets would be dissipated or removed.
The plaintiff satisfied the first two limbs but failed on the third, producing no evidence of a real risk of dissipation.
Allegations that the defendant had misused monies, faced a cheating charge, was a bankrupt and had misrepresented himself as a lawyer went to the wrongdoing that founded the suit, not to any risk of asset dissipation.
A defendant's general lack of probity, without more, does not establish that he will dissipate assets to frustrate a judgment.
As the third and decisive requirement was not met, the Mareva injunction was refused.
Practical Implications
A Mareva injunction is an exceptional remedy; an applicant must lead concrete evidence of a real risk that assets will be dissipated, not merely assert that the defendant is dishonest.
Material going to the merits of the underlying claim will not, by itself, satisfy the separate requirement of dissipation risk.
Applicants should gather objective indicators of dissipation, such as unusual asset movements, concealment or flight risk, before seeking a freezing order.