Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidator decision review

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2024

1. ) BUMIMETRO CONSTRUCTIONS SDN BHD 2. ) BUMIMETRO HARTANAH SDN BHD MACVILLA SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

WA-28PW-550-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-550-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the POD arose from a final statement of account acknowledged by the Respondent pre‑winding up, that the Applicant produced sufficient supporting documents (including certificates of payment) and that the Liquidator acted unreasonably, failed to investigate and exhibited bias; the alleged counterclaims did not justify outright rejection. Therefore the Court reversed the Liquidator's rejection and granted the relief sought with costs.
8 May 2023

1. ) Mr. Hamed Ahmed Al Ghazali 2. ) Mr. Abdul Latif Al Khunaini 3. ) Mr. Faisal Al Hajri 4. ) Mr. Husam Abu Ghazaleh 5. ) Mr. Ahmad Al Osaimi 6. ) Mr. Fuad Al Wohaib 1. ) Abrar Group International Sdn Bhd 2. ) Mr. Lim San Peen

Citation

WA-28PW-115-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-115-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The liquidator's rejection of the proofs of debt was upheld because the investment agreements were between the plaintiffs and AGAM (no privity with the defendant), any cause of action under the corporate guarantee lay with AGAM not the plaintiffs, claims alleging fraud are not provable in the winding-up, plaintiffs who filed proofs of debt are creditors and cannot assert trust remedies without statutory leave, and the court lacks power to order immediate restitution that would frustrate pari passu distribution; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
14 Jan 2022

Raymond Kwok for the Plaintiffs [Messrs Kwok & Co] Mark La Brooy and Janice Yip Yi Wen for the Defendants [Messsrs Raja, Darryl & Loh]

Citation

POST WINDING-UP APPLICATION NO. WA-28PW-194-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

POST WINDING-UP APPLICATION NO. WA-28PW-194-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The liquidators' rejection of the proofs of debt was reasonable and not perverse because the plaintiffs failed to produce credible documentary evidence for the 2012–2016 claims; the preliminary objection on language was dismissed under the winding‑up exemptions; estoppel cannot bind the liquidator; therefore the Motion was dismissed with costs.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) BUMIMETRO CONSTRUCTIONS SDN BHD 2. ) BUMIMETRO HARTANAH SDN BHD MACVILLA SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION)

1. ) Mr. Hamed Ahmed Al Ghazali 2. ) Mr. Abdul Latif Al Khunaini 3. ) Mr. Faisal Al Hajri 4. ) Mr. Husam Abu Ghazaleh 5. ) Mr. Ahmad Al Osaimi 6. ) Mr. Fuad Al Wohaib 1. ) Abrar Group International Sdn Bhd 2. ) Mr. Lim San Peen

Raymond Kwok for the Plaintiffs [Messrs Kwok & Co] Mark La Brooy and Janice Yip Yi Wen for the Defendants [Messsrs Raja, Darryl & Loh]