Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proof of debt in liquidation

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2025

ALFRED CHUA CHENG JUN JAKS ISLAND CIRCLE SDN. BHD. (Dalam Likuidasi)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-73-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-73-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the SPA constituted mutual dealings occurring before the defendant's voluntary winding up and therefore s.526 CA 2016 allows set-off; LAD was to be calculated from the date of the SPA to 31.12.2021 less the COVID-19 exclusion (resulting in 1,398 days), producing a total accrued LAD of RM245,802.86; accordingly prayers (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Enclosure 6 were allowed with costs.
4 Mar 2025

SYED GAMAL BIN SYED KECHIK AL-BUKHARY 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG

Citation

WA-22NCC-62-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-62-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There is no rule under Order 45 r.6(2) or Order 42 r.6(2) ROC 2012 requiring a judgment creditor to first pursue execution measures before applying to fix a time for payment; the Court will grant the application where evidence shows avoidance of payment, but will not order payment from a company in liquidation or its liquidator and the creditor must file proof of debt. Consequently the application to fix time was granted as prayed only against the 2nd and 3rd defendants and refused as against the 1st defendant and/or its liquidator.
11 Mar 2024

MAN PLUG INDUSTRIES SDN BHD WONDERFUL COMPOUND SDN. BHD. PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS CIMB BANK BHD

Citation

JA-37G-50-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-37G-50-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application by the judgment debtor to set aside the garnishee order was allowed: failure to cite the specific legal provision was not fatal because the creditor was not misled; nondisclosure of the leave application was not materially fatal because the court would still have made the garnishee order if properly apprised; however the garnishee enforcement was improper in the liquidation context because the creditor must file proof of debt under the Companies Act 2016 and the statutory priority scheme does not grant the claimed costs the asserted priority absent an express allocation by the…
22 Feb 2023

ICE FAR EAST SDN BHD BIAXIS (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

PA-28PW-40-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-28PW-40-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave refused because the Applicant's claim is purely monetary and can be adequately and appropriately dealt with in the liquidation process by filing a proof of debt; granting leave would risk depleting the company's limited assets, give the Applicant an undue preference over other unsecured creditors and undermine the pari passu principle.
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.

Malaysia Case Law

ALFRED CHUA CHENG JUN JAKS ISLAND CIRCLE SDN. BHD. (Dalam Likuidasi)

SYED GAMAL BIN SYED KECHIK AL-BUKHARY 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG

MAN PLUG INDUSTRIES SDN BHD WONDERFUL COMPOUND SDN. BHD. PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS CIMB BANK BHD

ICE FAR EAST SDN BHD BIAXIS (M) SDN. BHD.

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