Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 471 companies act 2016

Legal area

Court

19 Jun 2025

SKS FOAM (M) SDN BHD (dalam penggulungan) SKS INTEGRATED GROUP SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-369-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-369-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendant repeatedly pursued variations of the same grounds to set aside a Vesting Order that had become final and binding; appeals and available remedies were exhausted and the continued, reflexive filings and appeals were aimed at obstructing liquidation and enforcement, meeting the standard of habitual and persistent vexatious litigation under paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; accordingly Enclosure 1 is allowed, Enclosure 6 dismissed, and restraining orders with specified limits and costs are appropriate.
25 Apr 2025

ZENN HRB SDN BHD LIANG KEE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

AA-24NCvC-354-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCvC-354-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed the Originating Summons: the winding-up order had been terminated before the JID was entered; the Plaintiff by admissions, structured payments totalling RM560,000 and by using the JID to strike out a winding-up petition affirmed and benefited from the JID; the Plaintiff's delayed challenge amounted to approbate and reprobate and abuse of process; equity therefore refuses restitution and relief.
9 Sept 2024

1. ) Seow Siew Kian 2. ) Kon Yeon Guen CT World Construction Sdn Bhd PEMPETISYEN RHB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-28PW-440-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-440-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

s471(1) cannot be used to regularise proceedings initiated by the company; s486(2) permits the court to sanction a third party to conduct proceedings where the liquidator declines to proceed. The OR indicated it would not proceed with the Appeal, therefore retrospective sanction under s486(2) was granted to regularise the Notice of Appeal and allow the applicant’s solicitors to represent the company. Separately, leave nunc pro tunc under s471(1) was granted to validate the Sessions Court judgment because the dispute had been fully adjudicated, hardship would result if set aside, and the balan…
31 Oct 2023

Lebas Techonolgies Sdn Bhd Malaysian Bio-Xcell Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28PW-619-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-619-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant established a prima facie case and demonstrated that the trust claim could not be adequately resolved within the winding-up proceedings, therefore leave to commence the Proposed Originating Summons under section 471 CA 2016 is granted.
15 Mar 2023

PIMINIK CAPITAL SDN BHD AKAY HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-234-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-234-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the ad interim stay suspended the operation and the liquidators' powers so that leave from the winding up court under s.471(1) CA 2016 was not required at the time the writ was filed; Clause 9A merely provided for placement of acquisition proceeds as security and was not a condition precedent to the defendant's independent obligation to refund RM4,500,000; because the defendant raised no bona fide triable issue the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for RM4,500,000 and the defendant's strike out application was dismissed.
7 Jul 2022

NG PUEH KOON BEGAN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28PW-297-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-297-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The motion for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove payment to the company and did not demonstrate a prima facie case; having filed a Proof of Debt the applicant's grievance can be addressed in the winding up proceedings, therefore the statutory test for leave under Section 471 (as articulated in Mesuntung) was not met.
7 Jul 2022

PEMPETISYEN Siti Zubaidah binti Jemadi for the Applicant [Messrs Gary Wong & Co.] Samir Zainal for the Respondent [Messrs Radzlan, Low & Partners]

Citation

PENGGULUNGAN SYARIKAT NO. WA-28NCC-660-10/2017 SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-28PW-297-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PENGGULUNGAN SYARIKAT NO. WA-28NCC-660-10/2017 SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-28PW-297-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to produce evidence that payment was made to or received by the company and therefore did not establish a prima facie case under s471; additionally the applicant had filed a Proof of Debt such that the dispute could be dealt with in the winding-up proceedings.
7 Oct 2020

Pang Yong Tung for the Applicants [Messrs S.K. Song] Pamela Ephraim for the Respondent Company [Messrs Ephraim & Associates]

Citation

KES PASCA PENGGULUNGAN GUAMAN NO. WA-28PW-137-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KES PASCA PENGGULUNGAN GUAMAN NO. WA-28PW-137-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicants failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to show full payment and a prima facie case; the property fell within assets controlled by the Receivers & Managers under the debenture as supported by case law and s386(1) CA 2016; consequently the liquidator was not the proper party and leave under s471 was refused.