Back
Next 
2017 MarsdenLR 222
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LIM CHIEW – Appellant
Versus
SITEMAN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD; LEE CHAO YONG (APPLICANT) – Respondent
[Companies (Winding Up) No: D-28NCC-186-2010]
The court may intervene in liquidator decisions if the applicant shows that the liquidator acted unreasonably, relied on irrelevant factors, or failed to appropriately verify debt claims.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Under s 279 of the Companies Act 1965, the court oversees the liquidator's decisions. Facts of the Case: The Applicant challenged the validity of a Proof of Debt filed by Lim Chiew, claiming it was unproven and invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the liquidator's acceptance of the POD needed to be revisited, aligning with statutory provisions.
Issues: The court framed questions regarding the validity of the POD and potential errors by the liquidator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the liquidator must demonstrate the substantiation of claims made under the winding-up proceedings.
Result: The court allowed the Applicant's application to reverse the liquidator’s decision concerning the POD as stated in para 2.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's claim and position as a creditor. (Para 1) |
[1] Enclosure 97 is the Applicant, Lee Chao Yong's application vide Notice of Motion dated 11 July 2016 made pursuant to s 279 of the Companies Act 1965 (' CA 1965') and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for the following orders:
(a) Mr Subramaniam a/l AV Sankar's approval of the Proof of Debt ('POD') filed by Lim Chiew be reversed and modified;
(b) the costs of this Motion to be borne and paid by the Liquidator to the Applicant forthwith; and
(c) any further orders and/or other reliefs as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.
