1. ) KUAN CHEE SIAN 2. ) JOVEEN NEOH WAN FEN v 1. ) VICTOR CHIN BOON LONG 2. ) HS BIO SDN BHD 3. ) ESTEEM LEGACY SDN BHD 4. ) EMEDASIA SDN BHD 5. ) NEOGENIX LABARATOIRE SDN BHD

ba-22ncc-187-09-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 January 2026 • BA-22NCC-187-09/2025 • 8 min read

2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Catchwords

The Plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction against the Defendants, initially heard ex parte and later inter partes. The Court ultimately refused to grant the injunction but ordered that RM3.4 million, placed by the 1st Defendant in a fixed deposit, be preserved pending the disposal of the suit. The 1st Defendant appealed, challenging only the preservation order, not the refusal of the injunction. The key issue was whether the Court could maintain preservation of the funds despite declining Mareva relief. The Court held that, although the requirements for a Mareva injunction were not met, preserving the funds was justified to maintain the status quo and prevent the proceedings from being rendered ineffective. The preservation of the RM3.4 million therefore does not operate as a Mareva Injunction in substance. It is simply the continuation of an arrangement which ensures that the subject matter of the dispute remains intact pending trial.

Judges (1)

Anita binti Harun Delivered

Counsel (9)

JK Lim Firm KH Wong & Co Firm Kah Sheng & Co. Firm Jason Cheong Kah Lok Counsel Plaintiff Lim Jit Kiong Counsel Defendant Lin Chia Yi Counsel Defendant Ng Jing Yi Counsel Defendant Nyat Kai Wen Counsel Plaintiff Wong Kah Hui Counsel Defendant

Parties (7)

EMEDASIA Sdn Bhd Defendant ESTEEM LEGACY Sdn Bhd Defendant HS BIO Sdn Bhd Defendant NEOGENIX LABARATOIRE Sdn Bhd Defendant Joveen Neoh Wan Fen Plaintiff Kuan Chee Sian Plaintiff Victor Chin Boon Long Defendant

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)

[1982] 1 MLJ 260 [1984] 2 MLJ 143

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-22ncc-187-09-2025)