Judgment debts against multiple debtors are generally enforceable as joint and several liabilities unless stated otherwise.

Darryl Goon Siew Chye JCA:

Introduction

[1] There was one core issue that arose in this appeal. It was in our view an important issue and one that has significant consequences particularly in the enforcement of judgment debts.

[2] The issue was this: whether the liability of judgment debtors, if not expressed to be joint and several in a judgment or order, is 'joint' with a consequence that each judgment debtor is only liable for an equal fraction of the judgment debt.

[3] This is the judgment of the court.

Background

[4] The factual matrix from which this issue arose was uncomplicated.

[5] Five individuals had presented Petition Pemula No.: D-NCC-26-21/2009 ('Petition 26') against fourteen respondents.

[6] The respondent was one among the five petitioners in Petition 26 while the appellant was one of the fourteen respondents.

[7] Petition 26 was presented upon allegations of oppression pursuant to s 181 of the former Companies Act of 1965. It was heard and it failed. Consequently, on 28th July 2010, Petition 26 was dismissed with judgment entered in favour of the respondents coupled with an order for costs in their favour the operative part of which read as follows:

'PENGHAKIMAN

... MAKA ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa Petisyen disini ditolak dengan kos sebanyak RM50,000.00 kepada setiap set Responden yang diwakili oleh peguamcara yang sama.

Thus, Petition 26 was dismissed with costs of RM50,000.00 awarded to each set of respondents represented by the same solicitors.

[8] On the basis of having the same solicitors, there were five sets of respondents in Petition 26. The appellant, who had its own solicitor, was one of the five sets of respondents entitled to costs of RM50,000.00 as against the five petitioners.

[9] The costs of RM50,000.00 awarded in the appellant's favour was never paid. As such, and after a relatively considerable period of time, the appellant commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the respondent.

[10] The Bankruptcy Notice dated 13th April 2016 was based on the judgment in Petition 26 and the order for costs made. The amount demanded of the respondent was RM50,000.00.

[11] The Creditor's Petition, Bankruptcy No.: BA-29NCC-3373-04/2016 dated 19th July 2017, was also based on the judgment in Petition 26 of 28th July 2010 and the sum of RM50,000.00 ordered as costs.

[12] The respondent on the other hand, responded by applying to set aside both the Bankruptcy Notice and the Creditor's Petition.

[13] The respondent's application was first dismissed by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar. The respondent then appealed against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar to the judge in Chambers.

[14] Two contentions were put forward by the respondent. The first was that the Creditor's Petition was filed beyond the time limited to do so. The second was that the amount the respondent was indebted to was not RM50,000.00 as stated in the Bankruptcy Notice and the Creditor's Petition.

[15] The respondent's appeal was allowed by the learned Judge on 24th April 2019. In consequence the Bankruptcy Notice and Creditor's Petition were set aside. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Judge, the appellant appealed.

[16] The learned Judge did not agree with the respondent's first contention but found in his favour in respect of his second. Hence it was the second of the respondent's contention that became the single issue canvassed in this appeal.

The Core Contention

[17] It was the respondent's contention that the order for costs of RM50,000.00 made against him and the other Petitioners in Petition 26 did not state whether their liability for that sum was joint and several.

[18] Accordingly, the respondent contended, their liability for the costs awarded was 'joint' and this meant that the five Petitioners in Petition 26 (including the respondent) were each only liable to an equal portion of the RM50,000.00 awarded ie RM10,000.00.

[19] It therefore follows, according to the respondent, that not only was the amount of