Sukri Bin Ahmad v ENERGY ECO BERHAD (BA-24-25-09/2025)

1.0

The present proceedings arise from an investment dispute between the Plaintiffs, who are investors, and the Defendants, in particular the First Defendant, Energy Eco Berhad (henceforth, D1) in relation to monies advanced pursuant to investment arrangements said to have matured without payment of the promised returns.

These Grounds of Judgment concern two applications arising in the course of the proceedings, namely Enclosure 1, which is the Plaintiffs’ application for discovery, and Enclosure 17, which is the Plaintiffs’ application for a Mareva injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with their assets pending the determination of the action.

After hearing the parties and considering the materials before the Court, the following orders were made. In respect of Enclosure 1, the discovery sought was allowed in part and the Defendants were ordered to disclose specified categories of financial and corporate documents, while the prayer seeking the convening of an Extraordinary General Meeting was refused. In respect of Enclosure 17, a Mareva injunction was granted against D1, up to the sum of RM6.5 million, but the application to extend the freezing order to the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants was dismissed.

These grounds set out the reasons for those orders.

2.0

The Plaintiffs contend that they had advanced monies to D1

The materials exhibited indicate that the Plaintiffs collectively invested substantial sums pursuant to those arrangements.

The documentary materials identify several individual investors and the respective sums advanced. The schedule exhibited indicates that the investments were not confined to a single investor but involved multiple individuals who collectively advanced approximately RM6.5 million to D1.

According to the Plaintiffs, the investment arrangements contemplated a defined investment period and the payment of returns upon maturity. The Plaintiffs contend that the investment period had elapsed but the promised payments and returns were not made.

The alleged failure to make payment upon maturity gave rise to the present dispute.

On the one hand, Enclosure 1 refers to discovery application of various financial and corporate documents said to be necessary for the proper ventilation of the dispute.

On the other hand, Enclosure 17 refers to a Mareva injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with their assets pending the disposal of the action.

3.0

The Plaintiffs entered into investment arrangements with D1

The materials exhibited indicate that the investments collectively amounted to approximately RM6.5 million and involved multiple investors.

The Plaintiffs contend that the investment period has elapsed but the promised payments have not been made.

The materials also include documents relating to judicial management proceedings previously initiated in respect of D1.

On 5 September 2025, the Plaintiffs filed Enclosure 1 of the Originating Summons seeking discovery of various financial and corporate documents.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed Enclosure 17 seeking a Mareva injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with their assets pending the disposal of the action.

4.0

The issues arising for determination are as follows: a) Whether the discovery sought under Enclosure 1 falls within the scope of Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012. b) Whether the discovery sought amounts to a fishing expedition. c) Whether the Plaintiffs have established a good arguable case for the purposes of the Mareva application. d) Whether there exists a real risk of dissipation of assets. e) Whether the Mareva injunction should extend to the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants.

5.0

LEGAL FRAMEWORK 1

The Court’s jurisdiction to order discovery arises under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012. The purpose of discovery is to ensure that parties disclose documents relevant to the matters in dispute so that the issues between them may be fairly determined.

In Yekambaran Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Bhd [1993] 2 MLJU 96, the court emphasised that discovery should not be used as a means of conducting a fishing expedition. The applicant must identify categories of documents with sufficient clarity and demonstrate their relevance to the issues in dispute.

Where relevant documents lie within the possession or control of the opposing party, discovery may be necessary to ensure that the litigation proceeds on the basis of full disclosure.

5.2 Mareva Injunction

The principles governing the grant of a Mareva injunction are well established. The Federal Court in Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul Rahman & Ors v Century Hotel Sdn Bhd [1982] 1 MLJ 260 recognised that the Court has jurisdiction to grant such relief where there is credible evidence that a defendant may dissipate assets so as to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment.

At the same time, Mareva relief is an extraordinary remedy and must be exercised with caution. In Pacific Centre Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (Malaysia) Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 143, the Court emphasised that such relief must not be used as a means of providing security for a Plaintiff’s claim.

An applicant seeking Mareva relief must demonstrate: a) a good arguable case; b) the existence of assets within the jurisdiction; and c) a real risk that those assets may be dissipated before judgment can be enforced.

The expression “good arguable case” was explained in Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG [1984] 1 All ER 398 as more than being barely capable of serious argument, but not necessarily one that the judge believes has got more than fifty per cent chance of success.

A Mareva injunction is a serious and intrusive remedy and must therefore be exercised with caution.

6.0

For clarity, the two enclosures are addressed separately.

6.1 Enclosure 1 – Discovery 6.1.1 Preliminary Objections

The Defendants contend that the discovery sought is premature and amounts to a fishing expedition.

I am unable to accept that submission. Order 24 empowers the Court to order discovery where the documents sought are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings.

The fact that the application is brought by way of Originating Summons does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction where the substance of the relief sought falls within the discovery regime contemplated under Order 24.

6.1.2 Relevance and Necessity

The Plaintiffs seek discovery of bank statements, financial ledgers, management and audited accounts, schedules of assets and liabilities, board minutes and contracts relating to the investment arrangements.

Given that the Plaintiffs contend that substantial funds were advanced pursuant to those arrangements and that payment has not been made upon maturity, the financial records of D1 are plainly relevant to the dispute.

6.1.3 Information Asymmetry

The Plaintiffs have already exhibited the documents within their possession, including the investment agreements relied upon.

However, the internal financial records of D1 lie entirely within the possession or control of the Defendants. Discovery is therefore necessary to address the clear imbalance in access to relevant financial information.

6.1.4 Fishing Expedition

The discovery sought cannot properly be characterised as a fishing expedition.

The Plaintiffs have already demonstrated that funds were advanced pursuant to the investment arrangements. The documents sought are directed towards understanding the utilisation of those funds and the financial position of D1.

6.1.5 Extraordinary General Meeting

The prayer seeking the convening of an Extraordinary General Meeting constitutes substantive corporate relief and does not fall within the scope of discovery under Order 24.

That prayer was therefore refused.

6.1.6 Decision on Enclosure 1

For these reasons, Enclosure 1 was allowed in part, with discovery ordered in respect of the specified categories of documents.

6.2

Enclosure 17 – MAREVA INJUNCTION

2.1 Good Arguable Case

On the materials presently before the Court, I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established a good arguable case.

The documentary materials indicate that substantial sums were advanced pursuant to the investment arrangements and that the investments allegedly matured without payment.

6.2.2 Risk of Dissipation

In assessing the risk of dissipation, the Court may draw reasonable inferences from the surrounding circumstances disclosed in the materials before it.

In the present case, the investments advanced amount to approximately RM6.5 million and involve multiple investors. The Plaintiffs contend that the investment period has elapsed without payment. The materials also include documents relating to judicial management proceedings previously initiated in respect of D1.

Taken together, these circumstances give rise to a real risk that the assets of D1 may be dealt with in a manner that would frustrate the enforcement of any judgment obtained in these proceedings.

6.2.3 Purpose of Mareva Relief

The Mareva injunction granted in the present case is not intended to provide security for the Plaintiffs’ claim.

As explained in Zainal Abidin (supra), the purpose of Mareva relief is to preserve assets so that the court’s judgment will not be rendered nugatory.

6.2.4 Chabra Jurisdiction

The Plaintiffs also sought to extend the Mareva injunction to the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants, as seen in the landmark case of TSB Private Bank International SA V Chabra [1992]

However, the materials presently before the Court do not sufficiently demonstrate that assets held by those Defendants are in truth the assets of D1 or are under its control. The Mareva injunction granted was therefore confined only in respect to D1.

7.0

The Court was mindful that a Mareva injunction is a serious and intrusive form of relief. The order granted was therefore carefully limited to ensure that it remained proportionate.

The injunction was confined to D1, and the amount frozen was capped at RM6.5 million, corresponding with the investments identified in the materials before the Court.

8.0

Two principal legal conclusions arise from the present applications.

First, discovery under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 will be ordered where the documents sought are clearly identified, relevant to the issues already raised in the proceedings and necessary for the fair disposal of the action.

Second, a Mareva injunction may be granted where an applicant demonstrates a good arguable case and a real risk that assets may be dissipated before judgment can be enforced, provided that the relief granted remains proportionate and carefully confined.

9.0

For the reasons set out above: a) Enclosure 1 is allowed in part, with discovery ordered in respect of the specified categories of documents. b) The prayer seeking the convening of an Extraordinary General Meeting is refused. c) A Mareva injunction is granted against the First Defendant up to the sum of RM6.5 million. d) The application to extend the injunction to the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants is dismissed. e) The findings made in this judgment are interlocutory in nature and should not be taken as a final determination of the merits of the dispute. f) Costs in the sum of RM5,000.00 to be paid by Defendants to Plaintiffs. Dated 22 April 2026 -sgd-DATO’ ANITA BINTI HARUN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN To the parties’ solicitors: For the 1st – 19th Plaintiffs : Muhammad Hisyam Md Yunus & Siti Nur Jannah Binti Jono (Messrs Hisyam Yunus & Co.) For the 1st- 4th Defendants : Jason Cheong Kah Lok & Nyat Kai Wen (Messrs Kah Sheng & Co.)