Tan Eng Keat and Yap Bing Yew for the Applicant [Messrs Gan, Lee & Tan] Harvinderjit Singh a/l Manjit Singh and Alicia Goh Ai Chen for the Liquidator / Respondent [Messrs Varun & Goh]
Leave to bring proceedings against the liquidator was required and not obtained; on the merits no cause was shown to remove the liquidator because he acted bona fide and reasonably in conducting the asset sale with creditor consultation and majority approval, any alleged procedural or technical statutory breaches did not amount to dereliction of duty or prejudice to creditors; therefore the summons to remove the liquidator is dismissed.
- Citation
- 28PW-458-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Applicant (creditor): WONG WENG FOO & CO.; Respondent (company in Liquidation): KINOS FOOD INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION); Liquidator: Mr Ling Sie Kiong
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 24 June 2022
- Case Number
- 28PW-458-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Winding Up Summons for Removal of Liquidator Under Companies Act Provisions / Judgment on Summons (grounds of Judgment)
- Outcome
- Summons dismissed; costs awarded against Applicant
- Legal Topics
- Removal of Liquidator, Duties of Liquidator, Leave to Sue Officer of the Court, Disclosure and Creditor Information, Outsourcing of Liquidation Functions, Asset Sale and Valuation, Preliminary Report Under S485
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
WONG WENG FOO & CO.
Applicant (creditor)
KINOS FOOD INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION)
Respondent (company in Liquidation)
Mr Ling Sie Kiong
Liquidator
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Summons for Removal of Liquidator Under Companies Act Provisions / Judgment on Summons (grounds of Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave was required and obtained to commence proceedings against the liquidator
- 2 Whether cause was shown to remove the liquidator for misconduct or dereliction of duty
- 3 Whether the liquidator unlawfully outsourced duties or delegated wholesale to third parties
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to bring proceedings against the liquidator was required and not obtained; on the merits no cause was shown to remove the liquidator because he acted bona fide and reasonably in conducting the asset sale with creditor consultation and majority approval, any alleged procedural or technical statutory breaches did not amount to dereliction of duty or prejudice to creditors; therefore the summons to remove the liquidator is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Summons dismissed; costs awarded against Applicant
Orders
- The Summons in Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs
- Usage and/or reference to Enclosures 17, 27, 28 and 32 and paragraphs 18, 20, 24-28 of Enclosure 72 are expunged from the record of these proceedings
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment