The principles of delay and res judicata bar a party from litigating the same issue again if already adjudicated.

[1] There are two appeals before us which are as follows:

(a) Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)(NCC)-2038-11- 2016 ("Appeal 2038" by the appellant Lim Chiew); and

(b) Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)(NCC)-2054-11- 2016 ("Appeal 2054" by the appellant Siteman Construction Sdn Bhd).

[2] These two appeals are against the decision of the learned High Court Judge ("Judge") delivered on 11 October 2016 allowing Lee Chao Yong's application under s 279 of the repealed Companies Act 1965 ("RCA"), vide Notice of Motion dated 11 July 2016 ("Motion 97"), to reverse and/or modify the decision of the Liquidator of the appellant ("Siteman") in admitting Lim Chiew's proof of debt ("POD") dated 21 June 2010 for the total sum of RM6,893,838.23.

[3] The learned judge's decision/order in allowing Motion 97 to reverse and/ or modify the Liquidator's decision is as follows:

(a) In respect of the POD in the sum of RM6,893,838.23, the Court orders the sum of RM6,334,674.51 to be subjected to determination by the Court;

(b) the Liquidator be directed to apply to the Court for such determination;

(c) all payments of dividend and distribution of the assets of the Appellant Siteman be stayed pending the final determination by Court; and

(d) costs in the cause of the determination referred to above.

[4] On 7 March 2017, by consent of parties, the two appeals were ordered to be heard together. We heard the two appeals on 25 January 2018 and found merits in both the appeals. We allowed both appeals against Lee Chao Yong and set aside the decision and order of the learned judge.

[5] For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as follows:

(a) Appellant in Appeal 2038, Lim Chiew (Petitioner in High Court) - Lim Chiew;

(b) Appellant in Appeal 2054, Siteman Construction Sdn Bhd (Respondent in High Court) - Siteman; and

(c) 1st respondent in Appeal 2038, and 2nd respondent in Appeal 2054 (Applicant in High Court) - Lee Chao Yong.

Background Facts

[6] Siteman is a company duly incorporated in Malaysia. Pursuant to a Winding-Up Petition filed by the petitioner Lim Chiew, Siteman was wound up by Order of Court dated 11 June 2010 and Mr Subramaniam a/l AV Sankar was appointed by the Court as the liquidator of Siteman ("Liquidator").

[7] Lim Chiew, the petitioner in the winding-up petition, is a creditor of Siteman and prior to the winding-up of Siteman, Lim Chiew filed two suits in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur, namely Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: D3-22-1319-2008 ("Suit 1319") and Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: D6-22-123-2008 ("Suit 123") against Siteman.

[8] Lee Chao Yong, the applicant, was a director of Siteman until he abruptly resigned on 2 October 2009, five days prior to a judgment being entered against Siteman on 7 October 2009. Subsequently, on 6 April 2010, Lee Chao Yong transferred all his shares in Siteman to his driver, Khairul Anuar bin Mamat. As such, Lee Chao Yong is neither a director, shareholder nor contributory of Siteman. Motion 97 under s 279 of the RCA is predicated on the ground that Lee Chao Yong is a creditor of Siteman.

[9] On 21 June 2010, Lim Chiew informed the Court in Suit 123 that Siteman has been wound up and withdrew his claim against Siteman with a view of filing POD with the Liquidator. However, Lim Chiew proceeded with his claim against the other defendants in their personal capacity.

[10] On the same date, 21 June 2010, Lim Chiew filed 2 PODS for the total amount of RM6,893,838.23. The 2 PODS were filed pursuant to Suits 1319 and 123 respectively. Under Suit 1319, Lim Chiew has obtained judgment on 7 October 2009 fo