Malaysia Case Law

19 Feb 2025

Chin Mee Shang (Dalam Kapasiti Sebagai Pelikuidasi Bagi True Renaissance Development Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 956365-a) (Dalam Penggulungan) Menurut Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi Bertarikh 15.05.2024) True Renaissance Development Sdn Bhd (In Liqui

Citation

WA-28PW-514-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-28PW-514-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the First Winding-Up Order was invalid because the s.466 notice was not served at the company's registered address, the petition was substantively defective as the petitioner was only one of three co-purchasers and thus lacked locus, and there was strong evidence of orchestration to revive a dismissed CVA; accordingly the petitioner's Enclosure 1 was allowed, the First Winding-Up Order was set aside as improperly obtained and the Liquidator under that order had no locus to proceed with WA-28PW-413-07/2024.

• Winding-up
• Service of notice (s.466)
• Locus to commence petition
• Fraud and collusion in proceedings
• Corporate voluntary arrangement (cva)
• Companies (winding-up) rules 1972

5 Nov 2024

PINS OSC & MAINTENANCE SERVICES SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) PERAK INTERGRATED NETWORK SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) URBAN DOMAIN SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28PW-333-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-28PW-333-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where there was no committee of inspection the default Table C basis applied but the court must assess whether the percentage basis yields a fair and reasonable sum; the liquidator had demonstrable involvement in multiple proceedings and in effecting an interim distribution and therefore some remuneration on the realisation/distribution basis was justified; the Court exercised its discretion to fix a reduced reasonable fee of RM435,927.51 to be paid out of company assets instead of the RM951,109.56 claimed.

• Liquidator remuneration
• Winding-up
• Companies (winding-up) rules 1972
• Remuneration assessment
• Table c

4 Mar 2021

Barry Goh together with Goh Jern Nie & Ahmeena Banu for the Respondent [Messrs Ahmeena Aziz & Partners] LAIN-LAIN RS Sodhi for the Petitioner [Messrs Sodhi Chambers]

Citation

PETITION NO. WA-26NCC-9-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

PETITION NO. WA-26NCC-9-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Rules of Court 2012, Appendix C, the Companies Act 2016 and the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 require winding up proceedings to be commenced and dealt with by petition; Order 28 r.8 cannot be used to convert a petition into a writ or to continue it as if begun by writ; accordingly the application to continue the petition as if begun by writ is dismissed, with costs, and conversion is legally impermissible. Additional basis: related pending suits would cause multiplicity of proceedings.

• Winding up
• Conversion of proceedings
• Rules of court 2012
• Companies (winding-up) rules 1972
• Jurisdiction
• Multiplicity of proceedings

HO SIEW CHOONG & ORS V. EVERWORTH SDN BHD

Citation

HO SIEW CHOONG & ORS V. EVERWORTH SDN BHD

Court

Malaysian court

The statutory demand was fatally defective because it cited non-existent subsections and was not served by leaving it at the registered office as required by s.218(2)(a); strict compliance with service and other pre-requisites is essential and a registrar's certificate does not cure such fatal defects; therefore the winding-up petition failed and must be dismissed.

• Statutory demand
• Service of process
• Winding-up
• Companies (winding-up) rules 1972
• Companies act 1965 s.218