PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN RHB INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN LIM KIAN BOON

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN RHB INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN LIM KIAN BOON

The court held the Consent Order was a final and enforceable judgment within s.3(1)(i) IA, the SA and Supp SA preserved and did not vary or discharge the guarantors' liabilities, the parties had contracted out of ss.87,88,92 and 94 CA, the BN was sufficiently certain and supported by a Certificate of Indebtedness, any minimal excess interest did not invalidate the BN, and there were no further modes of execution to exhaust against the principal debtor so leave under s.5(3)(b) IA was properly granted; accordingly the creditor's appeals were allowed.

Citation
WA-29NCC-1069-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Debtor: LIM KIAN BOON; Judgment Debtor: AHMAD AKMAL BIN HAMZAH; Judgment Creditor: RHB INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 January 2026
Case Number
WA-29NCC-1069-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Appeal (challenge to Senior Assistant Registrar's Decision)
Outcome
Appeals allowed in favour of the Judgment Creditor; Bankruptcy Notice upheld and leave to commence bankruptcy against guarantors granted
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Bankruptcy Notice, Leave to Commence Bankruptcy, Consent Order Enforcement, Guarantor Liability, Exhaustion of Execution, Limitation on Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Bankruptcy Insolvency Contract Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Bankruptcy Notice Leave to Commence Bankruptcy Consent Order Enforcement Guarantor Liability +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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIM KIAN BOON

Judgment Debtor

AHMAD AKMAL BIN HAMZAH

Judgment Debtor

RHB INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Appeal (challenge to Senior Assistant Registrar's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Consent Order is a final order within s.3(1)(i) IA
  2. 2 Whether the Bankruptcy Notice (BN) was defective or ambiguous
  3. 3 Whether the Settlement Agreement/Supplemental SA varied or discharged guarantors under ss.87,88,92 and 94 Contracts Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Consent Order was a final and enforceable judgment within s.3(1)(i) IA, the SA and Supp SA preserved and did not vary or discharge the guarantors' liabilities, the parties had contracted out of ss.87,88,92 and 94 CA, the BN was sufficiently certain and supported by a Certificate of Indebtedness, any minimal excess interest did not invalidate the BN, and there were no further modes of execution to exhaust against the principal debtor so leave under s.5(3)(b) IA was properly granted; accordingly the creditor's appeals were allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in favour of the Judgment Creditor; Bankruptcy Notice upheld and leave to commence bankruptcy against guarantors granted

Orders

  • Appeals in Encl 37 and Encl 38 in Bankruptcy 1069 allowed with costs
  • Similar orders made in Bankruptcy 1070 (Encl 41 and Encl 42) allowed with costs