MAREVA INJUNCTION – FREEZING OF BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE JUDGMENT
How can I freeze a bank account? – Mareva Injunction.
Berita Terkini
How can I freeze a bank account? – Mareva Injunction.
The Hague-Visby Rules were recently on 15.7.2021 incorporated to replace the Hague Rules used in Malaysia. However, not all the provisions in Hague-Visby Rules apply. The following table will set out the relevant changes made in the amended COGSA.
When will an arrested vessel become a wasting asset? An analysis of the condition on MV Yih Shen, one of the first few vessels sold by the court in a judicial sale pendente lite proceeding.
What is Admiralty Sheriff’s expenses? Who pays the Sheriff’s Expenses? The pitfall of Admiralty arrest.
What is maritime lien? What type of claim is classed as Maritime Lien? What is the significant of having a maritime lien?
Can a director of a company make payments to himself or divert funds to third party after a winding up petition is presented and served?
What can you do when one party relies on an exclusion clause that absolves any liability against them in the event of a dispute?
Can you compel your partner, who refuses to acknowledge paternity, to undergo a DNA Test?
“What is money laundering and the law that governs it”
What is minority shareholders’ oppression? What are my legal remedies?
The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.
In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.
The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.
The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.
The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.
This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.