Zaki Tun Azmi CJ:

[1] Leave to appeal to the Federal Court was granted on the following question:

Whether the Official Receiver/Liquidator can appoint an advocate and solicitor to bring an action or to defend an action solely by relying on s 236(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 independent of s 236(1)(e).

[2] From the question, it would seem that the main issue is the interpretation of s 236(1)(e) and s 236(2)(a) of the Companies Act. This section deals with the power of the liquidator to "appoint an advocate to assist him in his duties" as an advocate to act on behalf of the wound up company. By the way, according to the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, "advocate" means an advocate and solicitor of the High Court.

[3] The dispute arose because M/s Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis (M/s Sidek Teoh) was appointed without authority of the Court or the committee of inspection. The appellant argues that the authority of the Court or the committee of inspection is not necessary because they are relying on s 236(2)(a).

[4] At the outset of the appeal we posed to the appellant's counsel the question as to whether this Court's ruling based on the question would benefit the appellant in this cas