Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidator powers and duties

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2022

Kelly Khoo Seo Ju for the Applicant [Messrs Malis & Khoo] Ahmad Ezmeel bin Ahmad Tarmizi for Wong Weng Foo the Liquidator (for Kilang Papan Wakaf Tapai Sdn Bhd) (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [Messrs Ezmeel & Co.] PENCELAH Lau Kee Se

Citation

WA-28PW-224-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-224-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Consent/Compromise Order of 8.10.2021 effectively admitted the Applicant's claim and, having regard to Companies Act s291 and Insolvency Act s65 and the duty to give effect to court orders, the joint liquidators could not insist on a fresh POD; accordingly the liquidators were ordered to pay 65% of the admitted claim and to comply with the other reliefs sought.
11 Oct 2022

Yap Yeow Han and Abd Azim bin Abd Razak for the Applicant [Messrs Rahmat Lim & Partners] 1. ) Emily Wong and H’ng Yen Jun for the 1 st Respondent [Messrs Dennis Nik & Wong] 2. ) Saheran Suhendran and Rodney Gan for the 2nd Respondent [Messr

Citation

WA-28PW-333-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-333-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Motion was dismissed because the Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the liquidator acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or in a manner so unreasonable that no reasonable liquidator would have acted so; the alleged conflict was disclosed, the sale was conducted by public tender and approved by the court (26.8.2021), and the applicant cannot use Section 517 or injunctive relief to reopen a valid prior order absent illegality or lack of jurisdiction. Costs were awarded to respondents.
9 Aug 2022

Sukhwinder Singh for the Applicant [Messrs Sukhwinder Singh N Mahinder Singh] S. Ravichandaran and Puvarnisha Paskaran for the Respondent [Messrs S. Ravichandran & Anuar]

Citation

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. WA-28PW-243-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. WA-28PW-243-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that under ss.502 and 503 of the Companies Act 2016 the 2nd Applicant, as liquidator, is entitled to the documents and information sought and that the Respondent, by virtue of his prior conduct as liquidator and his directorship of Rimbun, likely has access to them; an oral examination would be oppressive, so the court ordered production of the listed documents and permitted written interrogatories in lieu of oral examination, with costs to be paid from the company's assets.
9 Aug 2022

1. ) LEMBAH KERJAYA SDN BHD 2. ) Mohd Afrizan bin Husain SUNDARASAN A/L ARUMUGAM

Citation

WA-28PW-243-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-243-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that under ss.502 and 503 Companies Act 2016 the Respondent, having acted as liquidator and as a director of the firm involved, likely had access to and/or knowledge of the documents sought and therefore must deliver the documents sought (prayers 1(a)–(y)). However, an oral examination was refused as potentially oppressive; instead the court ordered written interrogatories in prescribed Forms (45 and 47) with specified timeframes and granted costs to be paid out of the company's assets.
13 Jul 2020

S Dhanaraj for the Plaintiffs Messrs Hakem Arabi Pamela Ephraim for the 1st Defendant’s Liquidator Messrs Ephraim & Associates PIHAK KETIGA Nurul Hafeeza for Hong See Ching Messrs CW Loh & Associates

Citation

COMPANIES POST WINDING UP NO. WA-28PW-300-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

COMPANIES POST WINDING UP NO. WA-28PW-300-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the court-appointed liquidator steps into the shoes of the developer under the Strata Management Act 2013 and Companies Act 2016 and therefore is entitled to custody of the strata titles, records, accounts and related documents; actions taken by HSH and SHJ beyond surveyor duties and without statutory or owner sanction were void ab initio; fees unagreed and inconsistent with regulatory scales are unenforceable; consequently HSH must deliver documents, lodge POD and produce bank statements and pay costs.

Malaysia Case Law

Kelly Khoo Seo Ju for the Applicant [Messrs Malis & Khoo] Ahmad Ezmeel bin Ahmad Tarmizi for Wong Weng Foo the Liquidator (for Kilang Papan Wakaf Tapai Sdn Bhd) (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [Messrs Ezmeel & Co.] PENCELAH Lau Kee Se

Yap Yeow Han and Abd Azim bin Abd Razak for the Applicant [Messrs Rahmat Lim & Partners] 1. ) Emily Wong and H’ng Yen Jun for the 1 st Respondent [Messrs Dennis Nik & Wong] 2. ) Saheran Suhendran and Rodney Gan for the 2nd Respondent [Messr

Sukhwinder Singh for the Applicant [Messrs Sukhwinder Singh N Mahinder Singh] S. Ravichandaran and Puvarnisha Paskaran for the Respondent [Messrs S. Ravichandran & Anuar]

1. ) LEMBAH KERJAYA SDN BHD 2. ) Mohd Afrizan bin Husain SUNDARASAN A/L ARUMUGAM

S Dhanaraj for the Plaintiffs Messrs Hakem Arabi Pamela Ephraim for the 1st Defendant’s Liquidator Messrs Ephraim & Associates PIHAK KETIGA Nurul Hafeeza for Hong See Ching Messrs CW Loh & Associates