KILO ASSET SDN BHD vs HIEW TAI HONG

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 1318

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KILO ASSET SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
HIEW TAI HONG – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Raam Kumaar,Maizatul Azlinda Mohd Ali ,Respondent Advocate: Ranjit Singh,Faizul Hilmy Ahmad Zamri,Nathan Subramaniam Eliatamby,Jeffrey Lee

Table of Content
1. a court has discretion to extend time for compliance with procedural rules. (Para 1 , 22)
2. the background of the winding-up petition highlights significant shareholder disputes. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 20)
3. mandatory wording in rules does not preclude the court’s discretion to extend time. (Para 25 , 29 , 31)

[1] This was an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the Court of Appeal which reversed the decision of the High Court dismissing the respondent's winding-up petition against the appellant and the respondent's application for an extension of time in encl 17.

[2] Enclosure 17 arose from the winding-up petition where the respondent, pursuant to r 193 and r 194 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 ("Winding-Up Rules") applied for an extension of time to file and serve his affidavit in reply to the appellant's affidavits in opposition to the winding-up petition and to file and serve other affidavits.

[3] In this appeal, we will refer to the appellant as the company and the respondent as the petitioner.

[4] We heard the appeal on 9 July 2015 and dismissed the appeal with costs. We now give our reasons for doing so.

Background Facts

[5] Before we deal with t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 1318

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAKILO ASSET SDN BHD – AppellantVersusHIEW TAI HONG – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KILO ASSET SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
HIEW TAI HONG – Respondent