SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 MarsdenLR 1023

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LIM HAI KEE & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
DATO HENG JI KENG & ANOR (ENCL 1) – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Raymond Kwok ,Respondent Advocate: Mark La Brooy,Janice Yip Yi Wen

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Courts will not interfere with liquidators' decisions unless they are unreasonable and absurd (!) (!) . - Liquidators' decisions on claims rejection are entitled to deference if supported by credible documentary evidence (!) (!) . - Claims must be substantiated with proper documentation; self-serving statements without evidence are insufficient (!) (!) . - Winding-up proceedings follow specific rules that override general language requirements (!) (!) (!) . - Directors' fees require authorization by general meeting or articles; past payments do not create entitlement without evidence (!) (!) (!) . - Lack of written contracts and records prevents substantiation of employment or claims (!) (!) . - Estoppel cannot be raised against liquidators discharging statutory duties (!) (!) . - Motion dismissed with costs due to insufficient evidence supporting claims (!) .

What is the threshold test for courts to interfere with liquidators' decisions?

How to determine if a creditor's proof of debt should be admitted in winding-up proceedings?

What are the requirements for substantiating claims for director's fees and salary during liquidation?


JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 1)

Nadzarin Wok Nordin JC:

[1] In the Notice of Motion at encl 1 (Motion), the Plaintiffs have applied pursuant to s 461(1), (2) and 517 of the Companies Act 2016. for the following orders:

(1) In respect of the 1st Plaintiff/Applicant:

(i) that the Defendants/Respondents/Liquidators' decision as set out in their letter to the Plaintiffs/Applicants dated 7 May 2021 and served on 18 May 2021, rejecting Lim Kai Hee's (P1) claim for RM719,817.38 being Director's salary, EPF, bonus and Director's fee due to him as a Working Director of Mahamewah Development Sdn Bhd be reversed and set aside;

(ii) that the Defendants/Respondents/Liquidators' Notice of Rejection of Proof of Debt (Form 59) dated 7 May 2021 rejecting P1's claim of RM719,817.38 beset aside by the Court and declared null and void and of no effect;

(iii) that the Defendants/Respondents/Liquidators be ordered to admit/accept P1's claim of RM719,817.38 being Director's salary, EPF, bonus and Director's fee due to him as a working director of Mahamewah Development Sdn Bhd as a debt due and payable from Mahamewah Development Sdn Bhd to him;

(iv) that the Defendants/Respondents/Liquidators be ordered to pay out of the


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top