Lim Aik @ Lim Yeok 1. ) Goh Siew Koon @ Eng Sing Kuan 2. ) Tey Liong Seng 3. ) Tey Sui Kiat 4. ) SIN HAI ESTATE BERHAD 5. ) SING LIAN SDN BHD 6. ) TEY BOON GIOW & SONS SDN. BHD

Lim Aik @ Lim Yeok 1. ) Goh Siew Koon @ Eng Sing Kuan 2. ) Tey Liong Seng 3. ) Tey Sui Kiat 4. ) SIN HAI ESTATE BERHAD 5. ) SING LIAN SDN BHD 6. ) TEY BOON GIOW & SONS SDN. BHD

The Court held that the earlier Winding Up Court decision refusing ratification/payment to the liquidator’s agent, final by absence of appeal, operated as issue estoppel to bar the liquidator’s subsequent claim for fees relating to the period involving the agent (7.9.2012–14.12.2015); the subsequent evidence proffered (relating to a different company’s liquidation) was irrelevant; the High Court decisions were set aside and the matter remitted to the Winding Up Court to redetermine a fair and reasonable remuneration for the limited claimable period (21.2.2012–7.9.2012) applying the established multi-factor Fair and Reasonable Approach.

Citation
M-02(IM)-1476-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Liquidator (in Some Proceedings): LIM AIK @ LIM YEOK; Respondent: GOH SIEW KOON @ ENG SING KUAN; Respondent: TEY LIONG SENG; Respondent / Appellant (in One Appeal): TEY SUI KIAT; Company in Liquidation / Party to Appeals: SIN HAI ESTATE BERHAD (IN LIQUIDATION); Respondent / Company in Liquidation: SING LIAN SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION); Respondent / Appellant (in One Appeal): TEY BOON GIOW & SONS SDN. BHD.; Respondent / Petitioner in Related Winding Up Petition: LIM JIT KIM @ LIM TIAN JEE; Respondent / Petitioner in Related Winding Up Petition: TAN YIAN PING
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 May 2026
Case Number
M-02(IM)-1476-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeals Heard; Remitted to Winding Up Court for Redetermination)
Legal Topics
Liquidator Remuneration, Issue Estoppel (res Judicata), Admission of Further/subsequent Evidence, Winding Up Procedure, Taxation of Costs, Unjust Enrichment, Quantum Meruit, Remittal to Trial Court
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Contract Law Liquidator Remuneration Issue Estoppel (res Judicata) Admission of Further/subsequent Evidence Winding Up Procedure +4 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIM AIK @ LIM YEOK

Appellant / Liquidator (in Some Proceedings)

GOH SIEW KOON @ ENG SING KUAN

Respondent

TEY LIONG SENG

Respondent

TEY SUI KIAT

Respondent / Appellant (in One Appeal)

SIN HAI ESTATE BERHAD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Company in Liquidation / Party to Appeals

SING LIAN SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION)

Respondent / Company in Liquidation

TEY BOON GIOW & SONS SDN. BHD.

Respondent / Appellant (in One Appeal)

LIM JIT KIM @ LIM TIAN JEE

Respondent / Petitioner in Related Winding Up Petition

TAN YIAN PING

Respondent / Petitioner in Related Winding Up Petition

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeals Heard; Remitted to Winding Up Court for Redetermination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsequent evidence arising after the High Court decision must be proved relevant before admission at the Court of Appeal hearing
  2. 2 Whether an earlier Winding Up Court decision (refusing ratification/payment to agent) bars a later liquidator fee application by issue estoppel
  3. 3 Whether statutory scheme (s232 CA 1965, r142 WUR/Table C, r171, r173) permits payment to agent or recovery by liquidator (time-cost, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the earlier Winding Up Court decision refusing ratification/payment to the liquidator’s agent, final by absence of appeal, operated as issue estoppel to bar the liquidator’s subsequent claim for fees relating to the period involving the agent (7.9.2012–14.12.2015); the subsequent evidence proffered (relating to a different company’s liquidation) was irrelevant; the High Court decisions were set aside and the matter remitted to the Winding Up Court to redetermine a fair and reasonable remuneration for the limited claimable period (21.2.2012–7.9.2012) applying the established multi-factor Fair and Reasonable Approach.