A liquidator may be removed for cause as per Companies Act 1965, Section 232(1), but the court has discretion to consider the circumstances and reasons for potential non-compliance with statutory duties.

Prologue

[1] A lot is expected of a professional and it does not help at all if there is no open channel of communication between the professional and the people he serves. Here the liquidator concerned found his actions and more particularly his perceived inaction as justifying his removal at the instance of some creditors. He resisted his removal not least because his professional image and integrity is at stake. He said he could have done more but for the lack of funds.

[2] However the petitioners/applicants accused him of riding on his high horse; aloof and above the clamour of creditors crying out for progress on the liquidation exercise. They accused him of not contacting them and not convening a meeting to confer with them on the progress of the liquidation. It goes without saying that open communication builds relationship, develops understanding and engenders trust.

Parties

[3] The petitioners had petitioned for the respondent to be wound up for inability to pay its debt to the petitioners. The debt was a consent judgment recorded on 19 August 1999 which remained unpaid to the tune of RM54,600. The respondent was wound up on 19 April 2002 by the court and the official receiver (OR) was appointed as provisional liquidator.

[4] The petitioners lodged their Proof of Debt ('POD') with the OR on 27 January 2003. The Liquidator Ricky Thong Yew Fook (the liquidator) was appointed in replacement of the OR on 4 February 2004. The liquidator prepared a preliminary report on 24 September 2007 identifying inter alia, the respondent's assets as well as irregular fund transfers.

Problem

[5] There was no income coming into the respondent and the liquidator was hampered as such in most of the things that he wanted to do. He did what he thought was of crucial importance: the recovery of properties purportedly transferred from the respondent to Liberty Pillar Sdn Bhd ('Liberty Pillar') and the Chai family and managed to obtain an order from the court on 29 September 2009 for the properties (represented in 18 titles) to be transferred back to the respondent.

[6] There was however a stay granted against this order of the court pending Liberty Pillar's appeal to the court of Appeal.

[7] Exasperated by the slow progress of the liquidator in realising the assets of the respondent and the silent rebuff they received from the liquidator each time the petitioners requested for information and documents relating to the liquidation, the petitioners have applied for the liquidator's removal.

Prayer

[8] The petitioners applied for the following orders and reliefs in encl 109:

(a) That Ricky Thong Yew Fook of Messrs Thong & Associates, the Liquidator of Shencourt Properties (In Liquidation) Sdn Bhd, the named respondent company be forthwith removed as Liquidator of the respondent company on such terms and upon such directions deemed fit and appropriate pursuant to s 232(1) of the Companies Act 1965 and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable court;

(b) That Anthony Joseph Skelchy of PKF Covenant Sdn Bhd (Liquidator's Licence No 251/03/11 (JPH) be appointed as Liquidator of Shencourt Properties (In Liquidation) Sdn Bhd in place of the said Ricky Thong Yew Fook;

(c) Suitable provision be made for the cost of and incidental to this application to be paid out of the assets of the respondent company; and

(d) Such further