Malaysia Case Law

4 Mar 2022

WA-22A-743-2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-22A-743-2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22A-743-2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused leave because the plaintiff failed to furnish cogent and sufficient reasons for the delay as required by Order 46 r 3: only a single reminder was sent within the first six years, no follow-up enforcement was taken, dividend payments were received after the six-year period and were insignificant, and the application was filed over ten years after judgment; therefore the discretionary grant of leave could not be exercised in favour of the plaintiff.

• Leave to execute judgment
• Delay in enforcement
• Order 46 rule 2(1)(a)
• Limitation act s.6(3)
• Default judgment

WANGSINI SDN BHD V

Citation

WANGSINI SDN BHD V

Court

Malaysian court

The petition was dismissed: the sanctioned s.176 scheme bound the petitioner and limited its entitlement to the deposit refund under the scheme; the statutory demand was fatally defective because it included interest barred by Limitation Act s.6(3); the debt was bona fide disputed and the petition was oppressive and an abuse of process, therefore the statutory prerequisites for winding‑up under s.218 were not satisfied.

• Scheme of arrangement (s.176)
• Statutory demand (s.218)
• Locus standi (s.217)
• Limitation act s.6(3)
• Abuse of process
• Leave to execute (o.46 r.2)