Can the court freeze the defendant's assets before I win the case?

You are owed a large sum, and you hear the other side is selling property, emptying bank accounts or moving money overseas. Winning the case in two years means little if there is nothing left to enforce against. A Mareva injunction is designed for this problem.

What a Mareva injunction does

A Mareva injunction (also called a freezing injunction) is a court order that restrains a defendant from removing assets from Malaysia or dealing with them, usually up to a stated value, until trial or further order. It does not give you ownership of or security over those assets. It simply keeps them available to satisfy a future judgment.

The order commonly permits ordinary living expenses, ordinary business dealings and legal costs, and it is often accompanied by an order requiring the defendant to disclose their assets.

What the court looks for

The requirements come mainly from decided cases. In general, an applicant must show:

• A good arguable case on the underlying claim.
• Assets of the defendant, usually within the jurisdiction (worldwide orders are exceptional).
• A real risk of dissipation, meaning evidence that the defendant may move or hide assets so that a judgment would go unsatisfied. Suspicion alone is not enough.
• That it is just and convenient to grant the order.

Have a question about your own situation? Ask on WhatsApp

Urgent applications without notice

Freezing applications are usually made ex parte (without telling the defendant first), because notice would defeat the purpose. Under Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012:

• An ex parte injunction lapses after 21 days unless extended.
• The applicant must serve the order and papers within 7 days and the inter partes hearing is fixed within 14 days.
• Where no writ has been filed yet, it must generally be filed within 2 days of the order.

Because the defendant is not heard, the applicant owes a duty of full and frank disclosure, including facts unfavourable to the application. Non-disclosure is a common reason for injunctions being set aside.

The undertaking in damages

The applicant usually must give an undertaking to pay damages to the defendant (and sometimes third parties) if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. The court may ask for this undertaking to be fortified, for example by a bank guarantee or payment into court.

Effect on banks and third parties

Once a bank or other third party holding the defendant's assets is notified of the order, it must not knowingly help the defendant breach it. Breach of the order by anyone with notice may be contempt of court.

Example

A Johor trading company is owed RM2 million by a buyer. Days after a letter of demand, the buyer's director lists the company's warehouse for urgent sale and transfers funds to an overseas account. The supplier files a writ and applies ex parte for a Mareva injunction with an asset disclosure order, supported by the sale listing and bank transfer evidence.

Common mistakes

• Applying on suspicion without evidence of dissipation.
• Hiding unfavourable facts from the court.
• Underestimating the undertaking in damages.
• Waiting too long, which undermines the claimed urgency.

When to speak to a lawyer

Immediately if you have evidence assets are being moved. These applications are prepared within days. See civil litigation or contact us. For collection after judgment, see debt recovery.

Frequently asked questions

Can I freeze assets before filing my claim?

In urgent cases the court can grant relief before the writ, but the writ must generally be filed within 2 days of the order.

Will the defendant's whole bank account be frozen?

Usually only up to the value of the claim, with allowances for living and business expenses and legal costs.

What if the injunction is wrongly obtained?

The defendant may claim damages under the applicant's undertaking.

Sources & fact check

Legal points in this article were checked against the primary sources below. The law can change; this is general information, not legal advice.

1. Rules of Court 2012 (P.U.(A) 205/2012), text published by the Malaysian Bar, including Orders 12, 13, 18, 19 and 93
2. Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), AGC Laws of Malaysia
3. Office of the Chief Registrar, Federal Court of Malaysia (Judiciary portal)

Fact-checked on 17 Oct 2026