KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 23): The High Court has clarified that Supermax Corp Bhd (KL:SUPERMX) should be excluded from an earlier order to freeze the assets of glove entrepreneur Datuk Seri Stanley Thai in his divorce dispute.

There was no evidence presented by his wife Tan Bee Geok to support the claim that Thai holds shares in Supermax, Judge Evrol Mariete Peters said in her written judgment dated Tuesday following ancillary relief granted earlier that bars him from selling half of his assets and properties.

Thai maintained that even to this day, he does not own any shares in Supermax, the judge said, noting Tan failed to prove to the court that Thai held Supermax shares at the time the court order was issued.

Official documents from both the Companies Commission of Malaysia and Supermax, which are publicly available, also do not indicate such ownership, said Peters.

“Consequently, I found myself in agreement with Thai’s position that the inclusion of Supermax shares within the scope of the court order was not sustainable from a legal standpoint,” she wrote. “The reference to Supermax, if any, implied uncertainty and lacked concrete basis.”

A speculative inclusion would introduce ambiguity into the court order as it suggests the possibility of an asset that may or may not exist, undermining the clarity and enforceability of the court order, she said.

Thai and Tan were married in August 1987, and they have three children. The marriage was unable to last following what the judgment said “numerous allegations made against each other”. Tan filed for judicial separation in April 2022, while Thai filed his divorce petition in April 2024.

Thai has no direct holdings in Supermax, according to the company’s 2023 annual report. Thai and Tan jointly hold 40.29% in Supermax through their private vehicle Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd, the report showed.

Following Tan’s application to seek ancillary relief or an injunction under Section 102 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, the court issued an order in January 2024 prohibiting the withdrawal, transfer, and encumbrance in any way 50% of his assets or properties.

That covers a condo in Subang Jaya, four RHB Bank accounts, a property in Ijok, five OCBC accounts in Hong Kong, two ICBC accounts in Hong Kong, and shares in Supermax Corp and Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd, shares in Global Charm Corporate Ltd, and EPF account.

The objective was to protect matrimonial assets from improper disposal during divorce proceedings.

Besides the Supermax Corp shares, Peters also said Tan’s solicitors should not have asked RHB Bank to completely freeze one account solely-owned by Thai, of which he receives his pay.

Tan had “overstepped the boundaries” set by the court order, she said, stressing that the order had “specifically stipulated” assets held solely in his name.

Further, Peters highlighted that the order did not authorise or involve the bank as well as any other third party to take any action on Thai’s assets, and pointed out that the order was focused on the prohibition on Thai from dealing with his assets, without the involvement of any other parties.

“Despite the clear term of the court order, it became evident that upon receiving Tan’s solicitor’s letter enclosing the order, the bank proceeded to freeze 100% of the first respondent’s [Thai’s] funds,” she noted.

The judge also found that Tan’s solicitors had mistaken the order for a Mareva injunction and this was not supported by the actual legal framework or the specific wording of the court’s order.

Tan’s erroneous framing of the court order had misled RHB Bank into believing that it had a legal obligation to freeze the entirety of Thai’s assets, when in reality, the court’s directive was much narrower in scope, said Peters.

“I found myself in agreement with [the] contention that the freeze should never have extended beyond what was stipulated in the court order, which only applied to 50% of his assets and was not intended to involve the bank in any enforcement role,” she said.

As a result, the actions overreached and caused injustice to Thai, she said. “This serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering strictly to terms of the court order and not extending its scope,” the judge said.

Peters also clarified that the effective date of her court order should be on Jan 10, 2024, and should not be backdated to June 13 last year when Tan filed the application.

The clarification comes as Thai had asked for an explanation on her Jan 10 decision in April due to differences in the interpretation of her court order.