14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

11.5 Other Remedies<br />

11.5.1 Mareva Injunction 340<br />

A Mareva injunction can be a powerful tool in protecting a creditor. 341 It is a<br />

temporary measure which allows a court to restrain the company from removing its<br />

assets from the company pending the final disposal <strong>of</strong> a case. This pre-emptive<br />

remedy can be adapted in a situation where a company is insolvent prior to winding-<br />

up. This is illustrated in the case <strong>of</strong> Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd v Metramac Corp<br />

Sdn Bhd 342 where the Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal rejected an application by the plaintiff<br />

creditor for an order compelling the company to set aside monies to satisfy the<br />

plaintiff‘s claim in the event <strong>of</strong> a successful appeal, and instead ordered a Mareva<br />

injunction restraining the defendant from disposing <strong>of</strong> and dissipating assets up to<br />

the sums asked by the defendant. 343<br />

<strong>The</strong> court rejected the application to order the defendant to earmark a certain sum,<br />

because it would have the effect <strong>of</strong> creating a special fund in the plaintiff‘s favour to<br />

meet his unsecured debt. This order would then be ineffective in the event <strong>of</strong><br />

winding up, since such fund will be void for undue preference. 344<br />

Another example <strong>of</strong> a Mareva injunction being used in favour <strong>of</strong> a creditor is<br />

illustrated in Aspatra Sdn Bhd v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd . 345 In this case, the<br />

defendant bank sued its director Lorraine for secret pr<strong>of</strong>its allegedly made while he<br />

340 <strong>The</strong> term Mareva injunction is derived from the case <strong>of</strong> Mareva Compania Naviera S.A v<br />

International Bulkcarriers S.A [1980] 1 All ER 231.<br />

341 Mareva injunction has been described as one <strong>of</strong> the ‗nuclear weapons <strong>of</strong> law‘ per Donaldson L.J in<br />

Bank Mellat v Mohammad Ebrahim Nikpour [182] Com.L.R. 158 at 159.<br />

342 [2006] 1 MLJ 435.<br />

343 [2006] 1 MLJ 435 at 444.<br />

344 [2006] 1 MLJ 435 at 443, <strong>The</strong> Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal distinguished the facts <strong>of</strong> the case from that in<br />

Polly Peck International Plc v Nadir (No 2) [1992] 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 238 because, in the instant case,<br />

the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was between a debtor and an unsecured<br />

creditor compared to fiduciary and a beneficiary.<br />

345 [1988] 1 MLJ 97.<br />

393

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!