Malaysia Case Law

4 Mar 2022

WA-22M-286-07-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-22M-286-07-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22M-286-07-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A liquidator of a wound-up company does not have statutory power to issue a 'sanction' or to delegate his power under Item (a) of the Twelfth Schedule of the Companies Act 2016 to permit another person (including a contributory or creditor) to bring, continue or defend proceedings in the name of the company; only the Court may grant leave/sanction to a creditor or contributory (typically after the liquidator has refused or is unable to act) and the JIM letters purporting to grant such sanction are invalid and inoperable.

• Liquidator powers
• Delegation of statutory powers
• Sanction to sue
• Winding-up procedure
• Security for costs

18 Sept 2019

1. DIRGA NIAGA (SELANGOR) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 032926-U) (Dalam likuidasi – Augustine a/l T.K. James sebagai pelikuidasi) 2. AUGUSTINE A/L T.K. JAMES (No. K/P: 570902-10-6061) (Pelikuidasi Dirga Niaga (Selangor) Sdn Bhd) 3. YOGANATHAN A/L

Citation

W-02(NCVC)(W)-1972-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

NCVC

Case number

W-02(NCVC)(W)-1972-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellants (liquidators and agents) knew or ought to have known of plaintiffs' beneficial proprietary rights under settlement agreements, failed to obtain statements of affairs and to form the court-mandated Committee of Inspection, and therefore unlawfully and negligently disposed of plaintiffs' units; the Vesting Order obtained and relied upon was tainted by that breach and could not absolve the appellants; compensatory damages equal to the sale proceeds stand but awards of aggravated and exemplary damages and indemnity costs were unsupported and set aside.

• Liquidator duties
• Vesting order
• Winding-up procedure
• Res judicata
• Negligence
• Exemplary and aggravated damages

SUN MICROSYSTEMS MALAYSIA SDN BHD V KS EMINENT SYSTEMS SDN BHD

Citation

SUN MICROSYSTEMS MALAYSIA SDN BHD V KS EMINENT SYSTEMS SDN BHD

Court

Malaysian court

Interpreting Rule 28 in conjunction with s221(2) and Form 8, the court held the notice-of-intention requirement in Rule 28 is directed to third parties (creditors/contributories) and not to the respondent company which, as an existing party that has filed an affidavit in opposition, is not required to serve such notice to be entitled to appear and be heard on the petition.

• Notice of intention to appear
• Service of notice
• Interpretation of statutory rules
• Winding-up procedure
• Companies act 1965 s221(2)
• Companies (winding-up) rules 1972 rule 28 and form 8