Malaysia Case Law

8 May 2026

Lim Aik @ Lim Yeok 1. ) Goh Siew Koon @ Eng Sing Kuan 2. ) Tey Liong Seng 3. ) Tey Sui Kiat 4. ) SIN HAI ESTATE BERHAD 5. ) SING LIAN SDN BHD 6. ) TEY BOON GIOW & SONS SDN. BHD

Citation

M-02(IM)-1476-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

IM

Case number

M-02(IM)-1476-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the earlier Winding Up Court decision refusing ratification/payment to the liquidator’s agent, final by absence of appeal, operated as issue estoppel to bar the liquidator’s subsequent claim for fees relating to the period involving the agent (7.9.2012–14.12.2015); the subsequent evidence proffered (relating to a different company’s liquidation) was irrelevant; the High Court decisions were set aside and the matter remitted to the Winding Up Court to redetermine a fair and reasonable remuneration for the limited claimable period (21.2.2012–7.9.2012) applying the establishe…

• Liquidator remuneration
• Issue estoppel (res judicata)
• Admission of further/subsequent evidence
• Winding up procedure
• Taxation of costs
• Unjust enrichment

21 Jan 2026

WIRAMA SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION) 1. ) KHAIRIL AZAR BIN BADUR 2. ) YAP KOK BIN 3. ) TAM WEI LUM

Citation

WA-28PW-489-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-28PW-489-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that because there were no company assets to fund remuneration, the liquidator validly exercised his discretion under s.487 to charge third‑party purchasers reasonable verification/administration fees; the 1% charge and specified per‑unit fees were not exorbitant or unreasonable and therefore the court granted the liquidator's remuneration applications (PW‑489) in the terms prayed (prayers 1(a)–(d) and 3) and refused to impose the caps and refund orders sought in PW‑772.

• Liquidator remuneration
• Capping of fees
• Strata title transfers
• Discretion of liquidator
• Companies act 2016 s.479 and s.487
• Winding up procedure

21 Aug 2022

CONCEPT THEATRE SDN. BHD. 1. ) EDUTAINMENT DOME SDN. BHD. 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA

Citation

JA-28PW-34-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JA-28PW-34-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to appoint a private liquidator and remove the Official Receiver was dismissed because applicant failed to show cause (no personal unfitness, bias or conflict), was estopped by an earlier consent order appointing the Official Receiver, and the majority of creditors opposed removal consistent with Rule 119; court will not interfere absent compelling grounds.

• Removal and appointment of liquidator
• Estoppel/res judicata (consent order)
• Creditors' meeting and voting (rule 119)
• Winding up procedure

4 Aug 2022

YEW SOW CHEE ALAM LANGKAWI SDN BHD

Citation

P-02(NCC)(A)-2317-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

NCC

Case number

P-02(NCC)(A)-2317-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the balance of probabilities the Appellant, as a director who succeeded the deceased director and who had custody and control of the premises and keys, was in possession of the company records; under Companies Act provisions the company is entitled to those records to comply with SSM and LHDN requirements; an originating summons was appropriate to order delivery of documents; the HC's factual findings were not plainly wrong and therefore the appeal is dismissed and the order requiring delivery of the documents (Enclosure 1) stands.

• Production/inspection of company documents
• Directors' duties and liabilities
• Originating summons vs. trial
• Mandatory injunctions
• Multiplicity of proceedings
• Winding up procedure

17 Aug 2020

TYE YONG FOO TAN WEE BOON

Citation

JB-22NCVC-4-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JB-22NCVC-4-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike-out application (Enclosure 5) is dismissed because the petitioned claims are not plainly and obviously unsustainable; the issues involve disputed facts and points of law that require full trial and are not conclusively barred by prior winding up or Sessions Court proceedings, and res judicata does not apply to the High Court claim in the circumstances.

• Striking out pleadings
• Res judicata / estoppel per rem judicatum
• Trusts in share transfers
• Jurisdiction of sessions court
• Winding up procedure

28 Feb 2020

LIM JIT KIM @ LIM TIAN JEE TAN YIAN PING GOH SIEW KOON @ ENG SING KUAN TEY LIONG SENG

Citation

WA-28PW-499-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-28PW-499-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enc.380 (liquidator's cash distribution proposal) is dismissed because it fails to resolve cross‑shareholdings, perpetuates circular distributions and escalating costs, and the withdrawn NCD meant the cash proposal was inadequately particularized; Enc.1 (distribution in specie of Sing Lian shares held by Sin Hai) is allowed because res judicata did not apply to the later complete proposal, a distribution in specie in a solvent winding up is permissible and does not constitute prohibited financial assistance under s67(1) nor necessarily contravene s223/233 provided appropriate court sanction i…

• Cross-shareholding
• Distribution in specie
• Net cash distribution
• Res judicata
• Real property gains tax (rpgt)
• Liquidator's discretion

CHUAN POH ENG SDN BHD v LEE HUAT CHEOW AND CO SDN BHD

Citation

CHUAN POH ENG SDN BHD v LEE HUAT CHEOW AND CO SDN BHD

Court

Malaysian court

The consent order dated 29 August 1991 appointing a provisional liquidator and directing sale and winding up was void/invalid because the statutory procedures for winding up under the Companies Act 1965 and the Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 were not followed; the plaintiffs, as judgment creditors, had locus standi to challenge the order; and section 355(1) was inapplicable to cure defects in ordinary civil proceedings, therefore the consent order was set aside with costs.

• Provisional liquidator
• Consent judgment
• Locus standi
• Setting aside orders
• Winding up procedure