Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami