PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) CHENG YONG PIN 2. ) BAN CHUN HUNG 3. ) HI PEI SHAN PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN NG MEI YOONG

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) CHENG YONG PIN 2. ) BAN CHUN HUNG 3. ) HI PEI SHAN PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN NG MEI YOONG

The debtor's notice (12.10.2024) and supporting affidavit (6.11.2024) were dismissed because the notice was not served the mandatory three days before the hearing (service on 14.10.2024 gave only two days) and the notice failed to specify the statements in the petition disputed as required by Rule 116/Form 45; additionally, issues raised in the affidavit were previously decided and are barred by res judicata.

Citation
JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Debtor: Ng Mei Yoong; Judgment Creditor: Cheng Yong Pin; Judgment Creditor: Ban Chun Hung; Judgment Creditor: Hi Pei Shan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Case Number
JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition (creditor's Petition) / Interlocutory Hearing on Debtor's Notice to Show Cause and Affidavit
Outcome
Debtor's notice to show cause dated 12.10.2024 and affidavit dated 6.11.2024 dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice to Show Cause, Service of Documents, Computation of Time, Form Requirements, Res Judicata, Rule Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Bankruptcy/insolvency Civil Procedure Notice to Show Cause Service of Documents Computation of Time Form Requirements Res Judicata Rule Compliance

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ng Mei Yoong

Judgment Debtor

Cheng Yong Pin

Judgment Creditor

Ban Chun Hung

Judgment Creditor

Hi Pei Shan

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition (creditor's Petition) / Interlocutory Hearing on Debtor's Notice to Show Cause and Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debtor's notice of intention was served three days before the hearing as required by Rule 116 Insolvency Rules 2017
  2. 2 Whether the debtor's notice complied with the requirement to specify statements in the petition to be denied or disputed (Form 45/Rule 116)
  3. 3 Whether issues raised in the debtor's affidavit are barred by res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

The debtor's notice (12.10.2024) and supporting affidavit (6.11.2024) were dismissed because the notice was not served the mandatory three days before the hearing (service on 14.10.2024 gave only two days) and the notice failed to specify the statements in the petition disputed as required by Rule 116/Form 45; additionally, issues raised in the affidavit were previously decided and are barred by res judicata.

Court Disposition

Debtor's notice to show cause dated 12.10.2024 and affidavit dated 6.11.2024 dismissed

Orders

  • Notis Niat untuk membantah Petisyen bertarikh 12.10.2024 dan Afidavit bertarikh 6.11.2024 ditolak
  • Kos RM1000 dibayar oleh Penghutang Penghakiman kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman tertakluk kepada fi alokatur