The court emphasized that creditor classification must be proper and bona fide intentions demonstrated in restructuring proposals, allowing convening orders while dismissing restraining orders for exceeding statutory limits.

Saheran Suhendran JC:

[1] These Grounds concern an application in encl 1 ("Enclosure 1") for convening and restraining orders under ss 366 and 368 of Companies Act 2016 (" CA 2016") with respect to Schemes of Arrangement ("the Schemes") between the Applicants and their creditors. All references to sections herein are with reference to sections in 2016.

[2] The contents of this Judgment are set out below.

Introduction

[3] The Applicants (collectively, "KNM") comprise the 1st Applicant ("KNM Berhad") and the 2nd Applicant ("KNM Process").

[4] KNM had previously filed two (2) applications for convening and restraining orders under s 366(1) and 368(1), respectively. These applications comprise OS No WA-24NCC-1062-12/2022 ("OS1") and OS No.WA-24NCC-643-11/2023 ("OS2").

[5] This present Originating Summons dated 26 April 2024 ("OS3"), is the third application. By encl 1, the following are prayed for:

(a) under s 366(1), orders to convene scheme meetings ("OS3 Convening Orders") to consider and approve the Schemes between the Applicants and their creditors ("Scheme Creditors"); and

(b) under s 368(1), orders restraining proceedings against the Applicants for three (3) months ("OS3 Restraining Orders").

The Opposing Respondents

[6] The Respondents opposing OS3 ("Opposing Respondents") comprise:

(a) the 2nd Respondent: IPL Middle East DMCC ("IPL");

(b) the 5th and 6th Respondents: Ann Joo Metal Sdn Bhd & Ann Joo Metal (Singapore) Pte (collectively, "Ann Joo");

(c) the 7th Respondent: SapuraOMV Upstream (Sarawak) Inc ("SapuraOMV");

(d) the 8th Respondent: Konecranes Material Handling (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (formerly known as MHE-Demag Malaysia Sdn Bhd) ("Konecranes"); and

(e) the 11th Respondent: Meccilect Sdn Bhd ("Meccilect").

Submissions, Documents & The Dreaded Speaking Notes

[7] The Parties have filed written submissions and supporting documents as follows.

[8] KNM filed its Primary Submissions (Enclosure 217) ("KWS 1"); Reply Submissions (Enclosure 238) dated 13 January 2025 ("KWS 2"); and a Speaking Note dated 21 January 2025 ("KWS 3").

[9] The Opposing Respondents, in opposing OS3, filed and//or rely on:

(a) the Consolidated Written Submissions filed by IPL on behalf of the Opposing Respondents ("OWS 1") and OWS's Speaking Note dated 8 February 2025 ("OWS 2").The cause papers are set out in Appendix A of OWS 1. OWS 1 and OWS 2 are to be read with the Opposing Respondents' Bundle of Authorities (Vol 1) & (Vol 2) ("OBA1" & "OBA2" respectively);

(b) (Enclosure 226) by SapuraOMV dated 13 December 2024.

[10] Just a short observation on the speaking notes that were filed by both parties.

[11] A speaking note is to assist the Court and intended to be a short summary of what Counsel intends to say in oral argument. It should be no more than a few pages long.

[12] Its purpose is not, through labelling, to provide an excuse to file further and lengthy written submissions and to introduce new arguments. A speaking note is commonly filed at the eleventh hour often breaching the schedule for filing submissions set by Court. And also depriving the other side of a proper opportunity to consider it.

[13] It is more often than not, an abuse. As an illustration, in his speech at the Peter Taylor memorial lecture "Complexity and Obscurity in the Law and how we might mitigate them", Lord Justice Irwin observed with some distaste, "there is a special ring in hell for the advocate who stands up at 10:31 with the words "My Lady, My Lords, I have prepared a Speaking Note which is on the bench."

[14] The practice should be closely watched.

[15] In China Everbright - Ihd Pacific Ltd v. Ch'ng Poh [2002] HKCU 130 at para 35, the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong commented adversely on the defendants' speaking note of about 85 pages and the plaintiff's lengthy 'aide memoire', another euphemism for unwarranted written submissions. The Court also observed that it was not assisted by the length of the defendant's total submissions of 100 pages.

[16] In thi