Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to continue proceedings under s.471 companies act 2016

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2022

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD BIAXIS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

PA-28PW-31-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-28PW-31-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case, the claim was entirely monetary and capable of being adequately dealt with by the liquidation process via proof of debt; granting leave would risk depleting the company's assets, prejudicing other unsecured creditors and contravening the purpose of s.471 and the pari passu principle, therefore leave is refused and costs awarded.
26 Sept 2022

NG LAY GUEK Mammoth Empire Land Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) PIHAK KETIGA Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Citation

PA-28PW-18-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-28PW-18-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave denied because the applicant's claims are primarily monetary and can be adequately dealt with by the winding up court via proof of debt; the applicant failed to show a prima facie case (locus standi not established under s.22C and OS 11 was dismissed), and granting leave would prejudice other creditors and undermine the pari passu distribution principle.
23 Dec 2020

Nimalam Devaraja and Lam Rui Rong for the Applicants [Messrs Skrine] Mark Ho and Eldarious Yong for the Respondent Company [Messrs Chellam & Wong]

Citation

POST WINDING-UP NO. WA-28PW-358-10/2020 COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO. WA-28NCC-459-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

POST WINDING-UP NO. WA-28PW-358-10/2020 COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO. WA-28NCC-459-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was granted under s.471 because the assessment of account of profits involves unliquidated damages and a full hearing that cannot be adequately conducted by the liquidator or resolved in the winding-up process; committal proceedings are not execution against the company's estate and may proceed against directors despite s.472(3); filing a proof of debt for costs did not preclude the Applicants from seeking leave to continue separate AOP proceedings; there was a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and justice favored allowing continuation of the proceedings.

Malaysia Case Law

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD BIAXIS (M) SDN BHD

NG LAY GUEK Mammoth Empire Land Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) PIHAK KETIGA Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Nimalam Devaraja and Lam Rui Rong for the Applicants [Messrs Skrine] Mark Ho and Eldarious Yong for the Respondent Company [Messrs Chellam & Wong]