1. DATO' LER CHENG CHYE 2. LUM TUCK CHEONG 1. WONG CHING YONG 2. MALAYSIA BUILDING SOCIETY BERHAD 3. GRENE RESIDENCIA SDN BHD
The court held the acts complained of were acts in relation to charged assets and within the scope of receivership and did not amount to carrying on the company's business after commencement of winding up; therefore under s.386(1) no consent of the liquidator or court was required and the Plaintiffs' declarations failed.
- Citation
- WA-22NCC-457-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff Joint and Several Liquidator for Instant Bonus Development Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation): Dato' Ler Cheng Chye; Plaintiff Joint and Several Liquidator for Instant Bonus Development Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation): Lum Tuck Cheong; 1st Defendant Appointed Receiver and Manager: Wong Ching Yong; 2nd Defendant Chargee / Lender: Malaysia Building Society Berhad; 3rd Defendant Purchaser of Charged Property: Grene Residencia Sdn Bhd
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2020
- Case Number
- WA-22NCC-457-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial / Companies (winding Up) Declaration Claim / Trial Judgment (high Court)
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' action dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Powers of Receiver and Manager, Section 386 Companies Act 2016, Winding Up Commencement, Debenture Enforcement, Consent of Liquidator Vs Court
- 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
Dato' Ler Cheng Chye
Plaintiff Joint and Several Liquidator for Instant Bonus Development Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation)
Lum Tuck Cheong
Plaintiff Joint and Several Liquidator for Instant Bonus Development Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation)
Wong Ching Yong
1st Defendant Appointed Receiver and Manager
Malaysia Building Society Berhad
2nd Defendant Chargee / Lender
Grene Residencia Sdn Bhd
3rd Defendant Purchaser of Charged Property
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Companies (winding Up) Declaration Claim / Trial Judgment (high Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the receiver and manager continued to carry on the company's business after commencement of winding up
- 2 Whether consent of liquidator or court was required for a receiver and manager to continue to act merely as receiver after winding up
- 3 Whether specific acts (retention of sale agreements, instructing valuation, entering appearance in litigation, executing power of attorney) amounted to carrying on the company's business
Ratio Decidendi
The court held the acts complained of were acts in relation to charged assets and within the scope of receivership and did not amount to carrying on the company's business after commencement of winding up; therefore under s.386(1) no consent of the liquidator or court was required and the Plaintiffs' declarations failed.
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' action dismissed
Orders
- Action dismissed
- Costs awarded to the 1st Defendant
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