LIE KOK KEONG V TANG CONTAIER &SERVICES SDN BHD

LIE KOK KEONG V TANG CONTAIER &SERVICES SDN BHD

The attestation of the petition was invalid because the respondent produced no evidence (no affidavit by the attesting solicitor or by the attestor) to prove where the attestation occurred, and even if it occurred in Sarawak it was invalid because an advocate and solicitor of the High Court in Malaya who is not authorised to practise in Sarawak has no authority to attest there pursuant to r.102; therefore the petition's attestation is bad in law and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
LIE KOK KEONG V TANG CONTAIER &SERVICES SDN BHD
Parties
Judgment Debtor: Lie Kok Keong; Judgment Creditor: Tang Container & Services Sdn Bhd
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (bankruptcy Petition) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court (judge in Chambers)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Attestation of Creditor's Petition, Interpretation of Bankruptcy Rules R.102, Authority of Advocates/solicitors to Attest Outside Jurisdiction, Evidentiary Requirements for Attestation
Source Language
en
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Legal Profession Jurisdiction Evidence Attestation of Creditor's Petition Interpretation of Bankruptcy Rules R.102 Authority of Advocates/solicitors to Attest Outside Jurisdiction Evidentiary Requirements for Attestation

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lie Kok Keong

Judgment Debtor

Tang Container & Services Sdn Bhd

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (bankruptcy Petition) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court (judge in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the creditor's petition was properly dated
  2. 2 Whether the signature on the creditor's petition was attested in accordance with r.102 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969
  3. 3 Whether an advocate and solicitor of the High Court in Malaya has authority to attest a signature in Sarawak

Ratio Decidendi

The attestation of the petition was invalid because the respondent produced no evidence (no affidavit by the attesting solicitor or by the attestor) to prove where the attestation occurred, and even if it occurred in Sarawak it was invalid because an advocate and solicitor of the High Court in Malaya who is not authorised to practise in Sarawak has no authority to attest there pursuant to r.102; therefore the petition's attestation is bad in law and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Costs to appellant here and in the court below