Key Points: - The Judgment Debtor (JD) appealed against the dismissal of their application to set aside a Bankruptcy Notice (BN) and Creditors Petition (CP) [1][2]. - The JD claimed the BN was defective, the Consent Judgment was not final, and the calculation of interest was incorrect (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The JD argued the BN lacked an endorsement date, referred to the wrong court, and only included a draft Consent Judgment (!) (!) (!) . - The JD also argued the Affidavit Verifying the Petition (AVP) was affirmed before the CP was filed, making it void (!) . - The court found that arguments regarding the BN not having an endorsement date, referring to the Klang Sessions Court, or only enclosing a draft Consent Judgment did not cause substantial injustice and were formal defects curable under section 131 of the Insolvency Act 1967 [5][8]. - Section 131 of the Insolvency Act 1967 states that no bankruptcy proceeding shall be invalidated by a formal defect or irregularity unless substantial injustice is caused that cannot be remedied (!) . - A formal defect is one that could not reasonably mislead the debtor (!) (!) . - The court found the affirmation of the AVP shortly before filing but after attestation to be permissible and within the scope of the Act and Rules (!) (!) (!) . - The calculation of interest in the BN was found to be in accordance with the Consent Judgment, covering amounts in arrears (!) (!) (!) . - The court noted that lawyers should ensure filed papers are properly checked to prevent such occurrences in the future [18].

What is the effect of minor irregularities in bankruptcy notices?

What is the test for determining a formal defect in a bankruptcy notice?

What is the requirement for the timing of an affidavit verifying a bankruptcy petition?