[1984] 2 MLJ 143 PACIFIC CENTRE SDN BHD v UNITED ENGINEERS (MALAYSIA) BHD

Fact of the case In this case, an application for Mareva injunction was made inter partes. This was because it was a sequel to a successful application by the defendants to discharge an ex-parte order made earlier by the court under section 19 of the ebtors !ct 19"#. The targets of the said application were two parcels of land belonging to the defendants, or the proceeds of sale thereof, insofar as the same did not e$ceed %&1',()*,++*,- until the hearing of the action or until further order. The two properties were .the /ungei 0esi property. and .the 1etaling 2aya property.. The parties conceded that the essential elements requiring proof by the plaintiffs were3
(a) 1 a good arguable case, (b) 1 assets of the defendants were within jurisdiction, and (c) 1 a real ris4 that the defendants will or may remo5e their assets from jurisdiction or

dispose of them within the jurisdiction so as to render them una5ailable or untraceable. The only issue in this case was with regard to the third element. 1laintiff6s contention 1. 7elying on the efendants8 impecuniosity, timing of the proposed sale, and the surrounding circumstances. ). ! real ris4 that the efendants will or may remo5e their assets from jurisdiction or dispose of them within the jurisdiction so as to render them una5ailable or untraceable efendant6s contention 1.Three elements mentioned abo5e were all that the 1laintiffs need pro5e to entitle themsel5es to the orders prayed for. The only issue in this case was with regard to the third element. ).The element that the plaintiff must show a good arguable case *.The efendant reser5e for the consideration of the Federal 9ourt the point as to whether or not its decision in Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul Rahman v Century Hotel Sdn Bhd [which is authority for the proposition that jurisdiction for the grant of a Mareva injunction in this country is deri5ed from paragraph ' of the /chedule to the 9ourts of 2udicature !ct, 19'+, equi5alent to s.+" of the :.;. /upreme 9ourt of 2udicature <9onsolidation= !ct, 19)", is correct or not. 2udgment !n >rder made that the efendants be restrained pending trial of the action by itself, its ser5ants or agents, from disposing of or dealing with any part of the net proceeds of sale of the /ungei 0esi property 7atio !pplying the three elements requirement test, The 2udge satisfied that the 1laintiffs here ha5e a good arguable case and the efendants apparently recognise this as they ha5e ta4en out third party proceedings to obtain contribution and indemnity. !n appeal against the

order gi5ing lea5e to issue third party proceedings has been recently dismissed by the Federal 9ourt. ).The second element, namely, that the 1laintiffs must ha5e assets within as I ha5e already said, not in issue. *.In determining the third element, namely, the dissipation of assets, I forefront of my mind, on the one hand, the principle that the %are5a intended to rewrite the ?nglish law of insol5ency. +.It would be sufficient for the plaintiff to merely show a ris4 of disposal of the effect of frustrating the plaintiff in his attempt to reco5er the fruits of li4ely to obtain against the defendant@ the jurisdiction is, ha5e 4ept in the doctrine was not assets which has a judgment he is