MOHAMAD FAIZ BIN BAHKRI & 24 OTHERS AGA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA

MOHAMAD FAIZ BIN BAHKRI & 24 OTHERS AGA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA

The court refused leave because the Applicants’ pleaded claim was essentially for LAD which lies against the company in liquidation and not the liquidator personally; following Federal Court authority (Machang Indah), the liquidators acted within statutory duties as agents in selling the units and Applicants failed to show a prima facie case of misfeasance or personal liability against the liquidator.

Citation
JB-28PW-6-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Malayan Banking Berhad; Respondent: Aga Development Sdn Bhd; Applicants: Applicants: Mohamad Faiz bin Bahkri; Farah Farhana binti Mohd Fuad; Noor Azeera binti Mohd Radzuan; Azlina binti Othman; Yusni bin Yusoff; Azri Husni bin Hasani; Mohd Khairuddin bin Che Nordin; Hirzi bin Mohd Ishak; Zaid bin Mohamad Zali; Mohd Farhan Adhli bin Azman; Zailawati binti Hassan; Nurhaya binti Baniyamin; Mohd Khairul A’mri bin Mohd Salleh; Fatin Syaheera binti Yahya; Mohd Nazri bin Ngah; Muhammad Azham bin Abu Rahman; Noraini binti Bidin; Amizah binti Abdul; Mohd Tasnim bin Mansor; Siti Fairus binti Che Harun; Mohd Norazly binti Saien; Norashikin binti Saien; Rohana binti Harun; Idham bin Adnan; Cethy Qasmawanthy @ Siti Kasmawati binti Nor Ahad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 February 2023
Case Number
JB-28PW-6-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Action Against Liquidator After Winding Up / Judgment (leave Application Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Liquidator Liability, Vesting Order, Liquidated and Ascertained Damages (lad), Leave to Sue, Agency of Liquidator
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Contract Law Civil Procedure Liquidator Liability Vesting Order Liquidated and Ascertained Damages (lad) Leave to Sue +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malayan Banking Berhad

Petitioner

Aga Development Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Applicants: Mohamad Faiz bin Bahkri; Farah Farhana binti Mohd Fuad; Noor Azeera binti Mohd Radzuan; Azlina binti Othman; Yusni bin Yusoff; Azri Husni bin Hasani; Mohd Khairuddin bin Che Nordin; Hirzi bin Mohd Ishak; Zaid bin Mohamad Zali; Mohd Farhan Adhli bin Azman; Zailawati binti Hassan; Nurhaya binti Baniyamin; Mohd Khairul A’mri bin Mohd Salleh; Fatin Syaheera binti Yahya; Mohd Nazri bin Ngah; Muhammad Azham bin Abu Rahman; Noraini binti Bidin; Amizah binti Abdul; Mohd Tasnim bin Mansor; Siti Fairus binti Che Harun; Mohd Norazly binti Saien; Norashikin binti Saien; Rohana binti Harun; Idham bin Adnan; Cethy Qasmawanthy @ Siti Kasmawati binti Nor Ahad

Applicants

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Commence Action Against Liquidator After Winding Up / Judgment (leave Application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to sue the liquidator personally for LAD and alleged non-disclosure of vesting order
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of the vesting order to post-scheme purchasers constitutes fraud/misrepresentation rendering the liquidator personally liable
  3. 3 Whether the liquidator acted outside statutory duties such that misfeasance or personal liability arises

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the Applicants’ pleaded claim was essentially for LAD which lies against the company in liquidation and not the liquidator personally; following Federal Court authority (Machang Indah), the liquidators acted within statutory duties as agents in selling the units and Applicants failed to show a prima facie case of misfeasance or personal liability against the liquidator.

Court Disposition

Leave application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order as to costs