Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Intervention (order 15 rule 6 rules of court 2012)

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2020

BHL GEMILANG SDN. BHD. PENCELAH TETUAN DENNIS NIK & WONG

Citation

WA-24NCC-500-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-500-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to intervene and to proceed with the winding up petition was refused because the Proposed Intervener, an unsecured creditor, failed to show that intervention should displace a bona fide, viable scheme under s366; allowing the intervention would disrupt and likely frustrate the proposed rescue of the development and prejudice a large class of purchasers and public interest, thereby justifying the exercise of the court's discretion to dismiss the application.
18 Oct 2019

DATO’ SERI TIMOR SHAH RAFIQ NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-392-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-392-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to refuse leave to intervene because the Proposed Intervener, an unsecured creditor seeking to pursue winding up, would disrupt a bona fide scheme of arrangement sanctioned to revive the project and protect purchasers and public interest; the interests of the collective scheme creditors and the public outweighed the single unsecured creditor's interest, and allowing intervention would likely frustrate the scheme's implementation.