JA-29PB-873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

JA-29PB-873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court lacks jurisdiction to appoint a special manager in place of the Director General because the power to appoint is vested in the Director General by statute (s.12) and s.91 cannot be used to circumvent that statutory allocation of functions; the applicant failed to show special circumstances to warrant a stay; accordingly the application for appointment and for stay is dismissed with costs.

Citation
JA-29PB-873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Penghutang Penghakiman: Tan Bon Kiat; Pemiutang Penghakiman: Malayan Banking Berhad; Pencelah: Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi (Director General of Insolvency)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 December 2021
Case Number
JA-29PB-873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Insolvency / Application for Appointment of Special Manager and Stay — Judgment (reasons Delivered 19.12.2021)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Special Manager, Stay of Proceedings, Powers of Director General of Insolvency, Jurisdictional Limits of Courts in Bankruptcy
Source Language
Malay/English
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Appointment of Special Manager Stay of Proceedings Powers of Director General of Insolvency Jurisdictional Limits of Courts in Bankruptcy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Bon Kiat

Penghutang Penghakiman

Malayan Banking Berhad

Pemiutang Penghakiman

Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi (Director General of Insolvency)

Pencelah

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Insolvency / Application for Appointment of Special Manager and Stay — Judgment (reasons Delivered 19.12.2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may appoint a special manager in respect of a bankrupt's estate when the power is vested in the Director General of Insolvency under s.12 Insolvency Act 1967
  2. 2 Whether s.91 Insolvency Act 1967 empowers the court to override or substitute the Director General's statutory powers
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established special circumstances to justify a stay of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction to appoint a special manager in place of the Director General because the power to appoint is vested in the Director General by statute (s.12) and s.91 cannot be used to circumvent that statutory allocation of functions; the applicant failed to show special circumstances to warrant a stay; accordingly the application for appointment and for stay is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application in Lampiran 89 dismissed with costs
  • No stay of proceedings granted