LAIN-LAIN 1. ) YT Sohan and Leong Mun Poing for the Petitioners [Messrs T Tharuma & Associates] 2. ) S Ravenesan and Siti Nur Amirah Aqilah binti Adzman for Plusbury Development Sdn Bhd, Supporting Creditors [Messrs S Ravenesan] 3. ) Fazier

LAIN-LAIN 1. ) YT Sohan and Leong Mun Poing for the Petitioners [Messrs T Tharuma & Associates] 2. ) S Ravenesan and Siti Nur Amirah Aqilah binti Adzman for Plusbury Development Sdn Bhd, Supporting Creditors [Messrs S Ravenesan] 3. ) Fazier

On the evidence and in the absence of any affidavit in opposition, the court found on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was unable to pay its debts (supported by existing summary judgment and prior JM application), service of hearing was adequate, and therefore a winding up order under s465(1)(e) read with s466(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2016 was justified; costs RM5,000 ordered.

Citation
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO. WA-28NCC-683-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Tee Ah Kiat; Petitioner: Tee Ah Ann; Petitioner: Tee Ah Seng; Respondent: Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd
Court
WINDING UP
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 March 2021
Case Number
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO. WA-28NCC-683-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) — Companies Act 2016 / Winding Up Petition — Judgment and Winding Up Order (appeal Lodged)
Outcome
Winding up order granted against Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Inability to Pay Debts, Judicial Management, Summary Judgment, Service of Process, Supporting Creditors
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Commercial Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Inability to Pay Debts Judicial Management Summary Judgment +2 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

Tee Ah Kiat

Petitioner

Tee Ah Ann

Petitioner

Tee Ah Seng

Petitioner

Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) — Companies Act 2016 / Winding Up Petition — Judgment and Winding Up Order (appeal Lodged)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is unable to pay its debts under Companies Act 2016 s465(1)(e) and s466(1)(c)
  2. 2 Whether statutory demand was necessary before filing petition
  3. 3 Whether respondent received proper notice of the hearing

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and in the absence of any affidavit in opposition, the court found on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was unable to pay its debts (supported by existing summary judgment and prior JM application), service of hearing was adequate, and therefore a winding up order under s465(1)(e) read with s466(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2016 was justified; costs RM5,000 ordered.

Court Disposition

Winding up order granted against Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd

Orders

  • Winding up order in terms of the petition granted (paragraph 22(a)(b)(c) of petition)
  • Costs of RM5,000 awarded to the petitioners to be paid out of the respondent's assets