Rainbow Marble & Tiling Sdn. Bhd. Stone master Corporation Berhad

Rainbow Marble & Tiling Sdn. Bhd. Stone master Corporation Berhad

The court found the liquidator erred in law by rejecting the two proofs of debt on the basis that the corporate guarantees infringed ss472 and 528 CA 2016 and lacked consideration; the guarantees were supported by consideration and ss472 and 528 were inapplicable, and additional grounds not contained in Form 59 could not be relied upon absent amendment, therefore the liquidator's rejection was reversed with costs.

Citation
WA-28PW-379-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: DATO’ EII CHING SIEW @ YII CHING SIEW; Petitioner: IDAH HARTITI SURTIONO; Petitioner: STONE MASTER CORPORATION BERHAD; Respondent: RAINBOW MARBLE & TILING SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 December 2023
Case Number
WA-28PW-379-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Application to Reverse Liquidator's Rejection of Proofs of Debt (s517 CA 2016)
Outcome
Application allowed; liquidator's rejection of the two proofs of debt reversed with costs.
Legal Topics
Proof of Debt, Corporate Guarantee, Liquidator Discretion, Sections 472 and 528 Companies Act 2016
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Proof of Debt Corporate Guarantee Liquidator Discretion Sections 472 and 528 Companies Act 2016

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DATO’ EII CHING SIEW @ YII CHING SIEW

Petitioner

IDAH HARTITI SURTIONO

Petitioner

STONE MASTER CORPORATION BERHAD

Petitioner

RAINBOW MARBLE & TILING SDN BHD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Application to Reverse Liquidator's Rejection of Proofs of Debt (s517 CA 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the liquidator validly rejected the applicant's two proofs of debt
  2. 2 Whether the corporate guarantees were void for infringing s472 Companies Act 2016
  3. 3 Whether the corporate guarantees constituted an undue preference under s528 Companies Act 2016

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the liquidator erred in law by rejecting the two proofs of debt on the basis that the corporate guarantees infringed ss472 and 528 CA 2016 and lacked consideration; the guarantees were supported by consideration and ss472 and 528 were inapplicable, and additional grounds not contained in Form 59 could not be relied upon absent amendment, therefore the liquidator's rejection was reversed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; liquidator's rejection of the two proofs of debt reversed with costs.

Orders

  • Liquidator's decision dated 20.05.2020 rejecting the two proofs of debt is reversed
  • Liquidator to admit the two proofs of debt dated 13.12.2021 and 27.12.2021 lodged by the applicant