Dato’ Arthur Wang Ming Way and Wong Hui Hong for the Appellant/ Judgement Debtor [Messrs Arthur Wang, Lian & Associates] Edward Yii for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Simon Hue & Associates]

Dato’ Arthur Wang Ming Way and Wong Hui Hong for the Appellant/ Judgement Debtor [Messrs Arthur Wang, Lian & Associates] Edward Yii for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Simon Hue & Associates]

The 16.7.2020 Extension of Time Order expressly declared it to be the final extension; once perfected it could not be reopened and the court was functus officio such that the subsequent 10.8.2020 Extension of Time Order was invalid. Consequently the Bankruptcy Notice expired on 15.8.2020 and service was invalid; the appeals against the Registrar's orders succeed and costs awarded to the debtor.

Citation
DALAM PERKARA KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-108-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Debtor: Tai Kok Keong @ Tay Kok Keong; Judgment Creditor: Lafarge Concrete (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 May 2021
Case Number
DALAM PERKARA KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-108-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Appeal From Registrar's Orders (applications to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice and Extension of Time Orders)
Outcome
Both appeals allowed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Process, Functus Officio, Res Judicata, Perfection of Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Court Inherent Jurisdiction Extension of Time Service of Process Functus Officio Res Judicata Perfection 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tai Kok Keong @ Tay Kok Keong

Judgment Debtor

Lafarge Concrete (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Appeal From Registrar's Orders (applications to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice and Extension of Time Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 10.8.2020 Extension of Time order was valid
  2. 2 Whether the court was functus officio when granting the 10.8.2020 order
  3. 3 Whether the 16.7.2020 Order being stated as final precluded a further extension

Ratio Decidendi

The 16.7.2020 Extension of Time Order expressly declared it to be the final extension; once perfected it could not be reopened and the court was functus officio such that the subsequent 10.8.2020 Extension of Time Order was invalid. Consequently the Bankruptcy Notice expired on 15.8.2020 and service was invalid; the appeals against the Registrar's orders succeed and costs awarded to the debtor.

Court Disposition

Both appeals allowed.

Orders

  • Allow Enclosure 60 and Enclosure 61 appeals.
  • Declare the 10.8.2020 Extension of Time Order invalid and that the Bankruptcy Notice expired on 15.8.2020 and service was invalid.