Issue estoppel prevents parties from re-litigating issues that have already been decided, ensuring finality in legal proceedings.

Saheran Suhendran JC:

[1] These Grounds concern the Judgment Debtor's ("JD") appeal dated 21 April 2024 ['Encl 108'] against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR") in dismissing the Notice of Intention to Oppose the Judgment Creditor's ("JC") Petition dated 22 June 2023 [Encl 33].

[2] The parties' submissions filed herein are:

(a) JC's submissions dated 29 November 2024 (Encl 120) (JC Subs-1);

(b) JC's submissions dated 29 November 2024 (Encl 126) (JC Subs-2);

(c) JD's submissions dated 29 November 2024 (Encl 118) (JD Subs-1);

(d) JD's submissions dated 29 November 2024 (Encl 127) (JD Subs-2);

(e) JD's submissions dated 21 April 2025 (Encl 145) (JD Subs-3).

[3] The Contents of these submissions are as out below:

Background Facts

[4] On 30 September 2021, the JC obtained judgment against the JD in KL Sessions Court C/S No.: WA-B52NCvC-461-12/2020 ("Judgment") for RM300,000.00 together with interest ("Judgment Sum").

[5] The JD failed to pay this Judgment Sum. The JC then commenced these bankruptcy proceedings against the JD on 16 August 2022.

Chronology

[6] The following chronology of these bankruptcy proceedings is taken primarily from JC Subs-1:

[7] From the chronology, it can be seen that the JD has filed several applications to either set aside the JC's Bankruptcy Notice, Bankruptcy Petition and to stay the bankruptcy proceedings which were all dismissed except JD's Encl 31. The JD has never paid the costs awarded to the JC.

[8] As stated above, the JD filed the Notice of Intention to oppose the JC's Bankruptcy Petition ("JD's Encl 33") which was heard before the SAR. In Encl 33, the JD relied on the following grounds:

(a) The Request to Issue the Bankruptcy Notice dated 16 August 2024 is invalid because the JC's solicitors, Messrs KK Lim, is not an agent of the JC and is not entitled to sign the said request.

(b) The JC's Bankruptcy Petition is defective as the corporate seal of the JC was not endorsed on the Bankruptcy Petition.

(c) The date of the JC's act of bankruptcy is incorrect as the JC failed to take into account the seven (7) days from the date the Bankruptcy Notice was served on the JD.

[9] In opposing JD's Encl 33, the JC responded with the following:

(a) JD is barred and/or estopped by res judicata or issue estoppel from raising these the alleged issues against the JC;

(b) as solicitors on record, Messrs K K Lim is an agent of the JC with authority to make a Request to Issue Notice of Bankruptcy against the JD;

(c) the JC's Bankruptcy Petition was signed and presented by En Izham bin Ramli, a director and largest shareholder in the JC with the authority to present JC's Bankruptcy Petition; and

(d) JD's act of bankruptcy was determined by the SAR in Encl 5 and cannot be disputed by the JD in this appeal, Encl 108.

[10] In my judgment, the SAR rightly dismissed the JD's Encl 33. In this appeal in Encl 108, the JC raised many grounds. I dismissed Encl 108 on one primary ground — Issue Estoppel.

Res Judicata & Issue Estoppel

[11]Res judicata in the traditional sense was explained by the Federal Court in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v. Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd 1995 MarsdenLR 1135 ; ; [1995] 3 CLJ 783; [1995] 3 AMR 2559, where it was held that when a matter has been decided by a competent Court, the parties are not permitted to litigate this once more for res judicata.

[12]Res judicata in the wider sense or issue estoppel was authoritatively re-stated by the Privy Council in Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v. Dao Heng Bank Ltd [1975] AC 581, as applied by the Federal Court in Asia Commercial Finance (supra). In Yat Tung at pp 590 to 591, the Privy Council held:

"The second question depends on the application of a doctrine of estoppel, namely res judicata. ... But there is a wider sense in which the doctrine may be appealed to, so that it becomes an abuse of process to raise in subsequent proceedings matters which could and therefore should have been litigated in earlier proceedings. The locus classicus of that aspect of