The judgment emphasizes that a judgment entered against a bankrupt without obtaining court leave is irregular and must be set aside, despite an annulment order restoring the bankrupt's status.

A. Introduction

[1] The Appeal before us is the Appellant's complaint against the Learned Judicial Commissioner's decision on 9 March 2022 to dismiss the Appellant's Appeal (effectively confirming the Senior Assistant Registrar's ("SAR") earlier decision dated 14 December 2021 to dismiss the Appellant's application to set aside a judgment in default entered against the Appellant on 23 November 2016) ("JID").

[2] The Appellant contended that when the JID was entered on 23 November 2016 the Appellant was an undischarged bankrupt and in entering the JID against the Appellant (being a bankrupt), the Respondent did not first, obtain the required leave of Court under s 8(1) of the (then) Bankruptcy Act 1967 (now Insolvency Act 1967) ("the Act").

[3] Therefore, it is the Appellant's position that in the absence of leave of Court prescribed under s 8(1) of the Act, the JID entered against the Appellant (as an undischarged bankrupt) was therefore an irregular judgment and must be set aside ex debito justitiae.

B. Facts Of The Case

[4] For a better understanding of the matter at hand, it is necessary for us to set out the facts of the case that has led to the present Appeal:

a. Sunhor Builders Sdn Bhd (1st Defendant) was granted banking facilities by the Respondent (Maybank Islamic Berhad). As security, the Appellant (Lim Chee Tat - 2nd Defendant) and the 3rd Defendant (Teh Lai Hoon) had guaranteed the repayment of the banking facilities.

b. The Appellant and the 3rd Defendant were directors of the 1st Defendant. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were not a party in the Appeal.

c. The 1st Defendant had defaulted in the repayments of the facilities which had pressed the Respondent to issue demands for payments of the outstanding sums from all three Defendants.

d. The demand made by the Respondent was however neglected by the three Defendants. Thereafter, on 21 October 2016, the Respondent had commenced a Writ action (Civil Suit No: WA-22M-198-10/2019) ("Suit 198") against all three Defendants to recover the outstanding sums

e. When the three Defendants failed to enter appearance to the Writ action, judgment in default were entered against all three Defendants on 23 November 2016.

f. Unbeknownst to the Respondent, prior to the commencement of the Writ action against the three Defendants, the Appellant had been adjudicated to become a bankrupt vide a bankruptcy petition presented by another creditor by the name OTM Group Sdn Bhd in the High Court of Malaya in Shah Alam via Bankruptcy No BA-29NCC-173-01/2016 ("the 2016 Bankruptcy").

g. On 13 June 2019, the Appellant had successfully obtained an Annulment Order against the 2016 Bankruptcy under s 105 of the Act.

h. Meanwhile, premised on the JID that the Respondent had obtained, the Respondent had commenced a bankruptcy proceeding against the Appellant in July 2019.

i. On 5 February 2020, the Respondent obtained an Adjudication and Receiving Orders ("AORO") against the Appellant (2nd Defendant) ("the 2019