Avinder Singh Gill, Eow Khean Fatt and Intan Noor Asyikin for the Appellant /Judgment Creditor [Messrs Avinder Gill Chambers] Kee Li Ling and Chan Chew Weng for the Respondent/Judgment Debtor [Messrs L.L Kee & Co.]

Avinder Singh Gill, Eow Khean Fatt and Intan Noor Asyikin for the Appellant /Judgment Creditor [Messrs Avinder Gill Chambers] Kee Li Ling and Chan Chew Weng for the Respondent/Judgment Debtor [Messrs L.L Kee & Co.]

The Bankruptcy Notice was valid and reinstated because the amount claimed was ascertainable from the consent judgment (a fixed judgment sum less payments), no interest was payable under the consent judgment to be quantified to filing, the discrepancies were formal defects not causing substantial injustice under s131 Insolvency Act 1967, and paragraph 3 of the consent judgment permitted execution when payments/cheques were returned; a pending appeal did not bar issuance of the BN.

Citation
KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2442-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Kevin Khoo Yip Seng; Judgment Debtor: Leroy Lee Chee Wai
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 August 2020
Case Number
KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2442-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of Penolong Kanan Pendaftar set aside; Bankruptcy Notice reinstated
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Notice Validity, Consent Judgment Interpretation, Formal Defects in Insolvency Proceedings, Execution of Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure Contract Enforcement Bankruptcy Notice Validity Consent Judgment Interpretation Formal Defects in Insolvency Proceedings Execution of Judgment

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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Khoo Yip Seng

Judgment Creditor

Leroy Lee Chee Wai

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bankruptcy Notice was defective because the amount was calculated up to an earlier date than filing
  2. 2 Whether the Bankruptcy Notice was premature because conditions in the consent judgment remained unperformed
  3. 3 Whether the Bankruptcy Notice was ambiguous or incapable of informing the debtor of the sum claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The Bankruptcy Notice was valid and reinstated because the amount claimed was ascertainable from the consent judgment (a fixed judgment sum less payments), no interest was payable under the consent judgment to be quantified to filing, the discrepancies were formal defects not causing substantial injustice under s131 Insolvency Act 1967, and paragraph 3 of the consent judgment permitted execution when payments/cheques were returned; a pending appeal did not bar issuance of the BN.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of Penolong Kanan Pendaftar set aside; Bankruptcy Notice reinstated

Orders

  • Bankruptcy Notice dated 9.8.2019 reinstated
  • Costs of RM4,000 awarded (here and below) after hearing parties on the issue of costs