The court ruled that an application for a receiver requires stringent compliance with procedural standards, particularly in cases involving trust assets.

[1] The plaintiffs filed this suit on the premise that they are the beneficiaries of a trust known as the Tee Keong Family Trust ("TK Family Trust") and seek for a declaration as such. The defendant, Infoline Sdn Bhd is the trustee of the TK Family Trust.

[2] The application before me which is in encl 19, is filed by the plaintiffs for this Court to appoint one Adam Primus Verghese bin Abdullah ("Dato' Adam") as the receiver and manager over entire management assets of the TK Family Trust.

[3] The application is made under O 30 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC ") read together with s 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 .

[4] On 26 February 2018, I had dismissed the application on the grounds that:

(a) The affidavit in support of the 1st plaintiff dated 30 August 2017 ("AIS") did not exhibit to the Court the proposed receiver's curriculum vitae as well as his consent.

(b) An affidavit of fitness of the proposed receiver was also not filed. I found support for the aforesaid proposition from the judgment of Stephen Chung JC (as he then was) in the case of Marcel Jude M S Joseph v. Chok Brother Sdn Bhd . The learned judge in his judgment made reference to Re Church Press Ltd [1917] WN 39.

[5] For the avoidance of any doubt, since the dismissal was not based on merits, I made a further order that the plaintiffs were at liberty to file the application afresh. I said in my judgment as follows:

For the avoidance of any doubt, since the dismissal is not based on merits, I am making a further order that the plaintiffs are at liberty to file the application afresh.

I, however, order that the plaintiffs do pay the defendant a nominal costs of RM1,000 subject to allocatur.

[6] Subsequent to the dismissal of the application, Dato' Adam filed an affidavit dated 23 March 2018 ("Adam's affidavit") indicating his consent to act as the receiver and manager over the management of asset of TK Family Trust. Paragraph 6 of the said affidavit, which is in encl 69, states as follows:

[6] Further to the above, I wish to state that I have given my consent to act as Receiver and Manager over the management and assets of the "Tee Keong Family Trust' ("TKFT") and/or the Defendant Infoline Sdn Bhd in order to manage TKFT.

[7] In response thereto, defendant through its director, Yap Chong Chew ("Yap"), filed an affidavit dated 20 April 2018 ("Yap's affidavit") which is in encl 73. The defendant, in essence, mounted a technical objection to the filing of Adam's affidavit. It is the defendant's position that in view of the dismissal of encl 19, the plaintiffs should have filed a fresh application in seeking the reliefs stated in the same. According to Yap, it is not sufficient for the plaintiffs to only send a letter to the Court and sought for a case management date to be fixed.

[8] In para 9 of Yap's affidavit, he affirmed inter alia as follows:

I have been advised by my solicitors and verily state that there was no notice of application filed by the plaintiffs applying for the appointment of a receiver and manager, other than a letter attaching the said affidavit affirmed by Adam Primus Varghese Bin Abdullah which was affirmed on 23 March 2018.

[9] The letter dated 26 March 2018 from the solicitors for the plaintiffs to the Court states as follows:

Oleh hal demikian dan berkenaan dengan Keputusan tersebut, masih belum dimeteraikan, kami dengan rendah diri memohon agar Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini boleh mempertimbangkan semula Keputusan tersebut dan khas bagi tujuan ini, kami telah melampirkan di sini sesalinan Afidavit Plaintif-Plaintif (NO 9) yang diikrar