Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2940
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
PER: DATO NARENDRAKUMAR JASANI CHUNILAL RUGNATH – Appellant
Versus
SHENCOURT PROPERTIES SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION); RI.... – Respondent
[Company Winding Up Petition No: WA-28PW-312-11/2021]
Intervention is essential to ensure that all interested parties can be heard in proceedings that may affect their legal rights and interests.
Headnote:(A) Companies Act 2016 – Section 479(2) – Application for intervention in ongoing proceedings – Proposed Intervener seeks to join proceedings affecting remuneration as joint liquidators for a Respondent company – Court emphasizes the necessity of including the Proposed Intervener to effectively adjudicate the matter and protect legal rights – The Proposed Intervener must present bills to creditors prior to court intervention. (Paras 7, 8, 21, 23)
(B) Courts – Jurisdiction and discretion – The court retains discretion to grant interventions that ensure all affected parties can present their interests, avoiding injustice through the adjudication process. (Paras 7, 10, 12)
Facts of the case: The Proposed Intervener was initially appointed as the liquidator in 2004 and later discharged alongside the Applicant in 2019, but contested his exclusion from the Applicant's motion seeking remuneration. The case concerns the interpretation of an earlier court order on remuneration distribution between joint liquidators.
Findings of Court: The Court found that the inclusion of the Proposed Intervener is crucial for effective determination of the remuneration and rights of both liquidators involved (Paras 13, 21).
Issues: Whether the Proposed Intervener should be allowed to intervene in ongoing proceedings, and how the court should address remuneration matters for joint liquidators. (Paras 5, 6, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that intervention is warranted to prevent injustice and ensure all affected parties can be heard. The Proposed Intervener's involvement is pivotal in determining joint remuneration and responsibilities. (Paras 8-12, 19)
Result: The motion was partially granted, requiring the Proposed Intervener to present his bills at a creditor's meeting before further court intervention. Costs ordered against the Proposed Intervener. (Paras 23)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The case involves a winding-up and liquidation process of a company, with a focus on the intervention of a proposed joint liquidator in ongoing proceedings concerning remuneration [judgement_subject].
-
The Proposed Intervener was initially appointed as a liquidator and later discharged, but disputes arose regarding his exclusion from a motion related to remuneration as a joint liquidator (!) (!) .
-
The Proposed Intervener seeks to intervene in proceedings to be involved in the determination of remuneration, asserting that his rights and interests would be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasizes that intervention is necessary to ensure all affected parties can be heard, especially when their legal rights or financial interests are directly impacted by the proceedings (!) (!) .
-
The court considers whether the Proposed Intervener has fulfilled the legal criteria for intervention, including demonstrating that his rights will be affected and that he has a sufficient interest in the matter (!) (!) .
-
The court notes that the intervention should not be used as a means to circumvent statutory procedures for claiming remuneration, which require bills to be presented to creditors or the relevant committee before court intervention (!) (!) .
-
The court finds that the appointment order and the subsequent legal framework establish that the Proposed Intervener's involvement in remuneration matters is directly linked to his status as a joint liquidator and his entitlement to remuneration (!) (!) .
-
The court concludes that for the proceedings concerning remuneration to be properly adjudicated, the Proposed Intervener must present his bills to the creditors at a creditor's meeting before he can be allowed to participate further in the court proceedings (!) .
-
The court grants partial relief, allowing the intervention but requiring the Proposed Intervener to submit his bills for consideration by the creditors first, and orders the Official Receiver to convene a creditors' meeting accordingly (!) .
-
Costs are awarded against the Proposed Intervener for the motion, reflecting the court's exercise of discretion based on the reasons for delay and procedural considerations (!) (!) .
-
The court underscores the importance of including all relevant parties in proceedings that affect their rights and interests, particularly in complex liquidation and remuneration matters, to prevent injustice and ensure fair adjudication (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
(Enclosure 1)
[1] By way of an Amended Notice of Motion dated 9 January 2021 (Motion) in encl 7, Ricky Thong Yew Fook, the proposed intervener herein (Proposed Intervener) has applied to this Court pursuant to O 15 r 4(2) and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for inter alia an Order that:
1.1 the Proposed Intervener be granted leave to intervene in the Notice of Motion of Dato Narendra Kumar Jasani a/l Chunilal Rugnath (Applicant) the abovenamed Applicant in the intitulment dated 21 September 2020 (encl 1) which was filed in action No. WA-28PW-338-09/2020 (PW 338)
1.2 the Proposed Intervener be added as the Co Applicant in this action
1.3 the intitulment in this action be amended by adding the Proposed Intervener as the Co Applicant
1.4 that the Applicant shall serve all the cause papers in these proceedings to the Proposed Intervener within 7 days from the date of this Order and the Proposed Intervener to be granted leave to file any cause papers including but not limited to affidavits on behalf of the Co Applicant
1.5 that the orders prayed in the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 21 September 2020 (encl 1) be amended by adding the following:
"(a) that the Applicant and Co Applicant remuneration as the joint liquidators for the Respondent form the period 26 April 2011 to 19 February 2019 to be fixed by this Court on a single fee of remuneration"
1.6 costs
1.7 such further or other relief as this Court deems fit and necessary.
[2] The grounds in support of the Motion are inter alia as follows:
(a) By a Court Order dated 04 February 2004, the Proposed Intervener was appointed as the liquidator for the Respondent;
(b) On or about after seven (7) years the Proposed Intervener acted as the sole liquidator for the Respondent, the Applicant was subsequently appointed as the joint liquidator for the Respondent by virtue of the Court Order dated 26 April 2011;
(c) Pursuant to the Court Order dated 26 April 2011, the Court has directed that the remuneration for the joint liquidators shall be subjected to a single fee of remuneration for a liquidator;
(d) Both the Applicant and the Proposed Intervener have been discharged as the joint liquidators for the Respondent by the Court of Appeal on 18 January 2019 and the Court of Appeal further ordered that the Applicant and the Proposed Intervener to hand over all the files belonging to the Respondent to the Official Receiver;
(e) On 21 September 2020, the Applicant has filed encl 1 in this action to seek for the remuneration as the joint liquidator and pursuant to the Court Order dated 26 April 2011 and the Proposed Intervener is therefore entitled jointly to the remuneration as the joint liquidator to be fixed by this Honourable Court;
(f) The Proposed Intervener should be given a right to be heard in this action
Background Facts
[3] The chronology of events has been set out as follows:
Date Event 19 April 2002 The Respondent was ordered to be wound up by the High Court of Kuala Lumpur vide Winding Up Petition No D4-28-44. 04 February 2004 The High Court ordered that Proposed Intervener be appointed as the Liquidator of the Respondent. 24 February 2011 The Petitioners filed an application to remove The Proposed Intervener as the liquidator for failure to carry out his duties. 26 April 2011 By a Court Order dated 26 April 2011, the Applicant was appointed as the Joint Liquidator of the Respondent. 30 October 2017 Shencourt Sdn Bhd filed an application to remove the Joint Liquidators. On 09 February 2018, the High Court dismissed the Removal Application. Shencourt Sdn Bhd then appealed against the decision in the Court of Appeal. 18 January 2019 By a Court of Appeal Order dated 18 January 2019, both the Proposed Intervener and the Applicant were discharged as the Joint Liquidators of the Respondent and was replaced by the Official Receiver. 19 February 2019 Pursuant to the Court of Appeal Order dated 18 January 2019, the Applicant handed over all docu
