Yap Yeow Han and Abd Azim bin Abd Razak for the Applicant [Messrs Rahmat Lim & Partners] 1. ) Emily Wong and H’ng Yen Jun for the 1 st Respondent [Messrs Dennis Nik & Wong] 2. ) Saheran Suhendran and Rodney Gan for the 2nd Respondent [Messr
The Motion was dismissed because the Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the liquidator acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or in a manner so unreasonable that no reasonable liquidator would have acted so; the alleged conflict was disclosed, the sale was conducted by public tender and approved by the court (26.8.2021), and the applicant cannot use Section 517 or injunctive relief to reopen a valid prior order absent illegality or lack of jurisdiction. Costs were awarded to respondents.
- Citation
- WA-28PW-333-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Applicant: Classic Maritime Inc; 1st Respondent: Lion Diversified Holdings Berhad (In Liquidation); 2nd Respondent: Benapro Sdn Bhd
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2022
- Case Number
- WA-28PW-333-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Post Companies Winding Up (commercial Division) / Hearing on Notice of Motion to Set Aside Liquidator's Disposal Dated 19.11.2021; Interlocutory Injunction in Place Pending Determination
- Legal Topics
- Liquidator Powers and Duties, Sale of Company Assets, Related Party Transactions and Disclosure, Undervalue/valuation Disputes, Injunctions Against Execution of Orders, Section 517 Companies Act 2016 Appeals
- 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
Classic Maritime Inc
Applicant
Lion Diversified Holdings Berhad (In Liquidation)
1st Respondent
Benapro Sdn Bhd
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Post Companies Winding Up (commercial Division) / Hearing on Notice of Motion to Set Aside Liquidator's Disposal Dated 19.11.2021; Interlocutory Injunction in Place Pending Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can revisit or set aside a prior disposal order (functus officio and exceptions)
- 2 Whether the liquidator acted in breach of duty by selling the 87.96% equity at undervalue or with conflicted interests
- 3 Whether conflict of interest was adequately disclosed and whether related‑party sale is prohibited
Ratio Decidendi
The Motion was dismissed because the Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the liquidator acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or in a manner so unreasonable that no reasonable liquidator would have acted so; the alleged conflict was disclosed, the sale was conducted by public tender and approved by the court (26.8.2021), and the applicant cannot use Section 517 or injunctive relief to reopen a valid prior order absent illegality or lack of jurisdiction. Costs were awarded to respondents.
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