SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 606

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
WONG WENG FOO & CO – Appellant
Versus
LONDON BISCUITS BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(A)-1992-10/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Steven Tan Chee Qian,Tan Chee Yi,Chuah Chern Tee,Low Han Shin ,Respondent Advocate: Lim Chee Wee,Kwan Will Sen,Pang Huey Lynn

Joint liquidators must act together; unilateral actions by one liquidator without consent of the other are unlawful.

Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 69(4) - Liquidation proceedings - Liquidator's unilateral actions - The court found that the liquidator's attempt to act independently of the joint liquidator contravened legal principles requiring joint action by liquidators - The liquidator's request for a stay of the Court of Appeal's order was dismissed as it lacked merit and clarity. (Paras 71, 72)

(B) Liquidators - Joint liquidators must act jointly - The court emphasized that co-liquidators cannot unilaterally represent the company in liquidation, as this undermines the principle of checks and balances essential for fair liquidation processes. (Paras 40, 41)

Facts of the case:
The case involved a dispute over the actions of a liquidator seeking to operate independently and file motions without the consent of the other appointed joint liquidator, contrary to the Court of Appeal's order. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the preliminary objection against the liquidator's unilateral actions, reinforcing the requirement for joint action by liquidators. (Paras 48, 60)

Issues: The main issues included the liquidator's locus standi to act unilaterally, the legitimacy of extending post-liquidation powers to liquidators, and whether a stay of the Court of Appeal's order should be granted. (Paras 35, 66)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the liquidators must act jointly and that the liquidator's attempts to bypass this requirement were legally unsound. (Paras 40, 60)

Result: Enclosure 48 was dismissed with costs of RM15,000.00 payable by the liquidator to the appellant. (Paras 71, 72)

JUDGMENT

Azimah Omar JCA:

A. Introduction

[1] This decision is in respect of one of the Respondent's Liquidator's Notice of Motion ("Enclosure 48") dated 8 December 2023. In encl 48, the Respondent's Liquidator prayed, inter alia, that:

1) "Bahawa Encik Victor Saw Seng Kee, menurut s 69(4) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, dibenarkan untuk memfailkan dan memberi arahan berhubung dengan permohonan ini dan permohonan dalam Notis Usul Mahkamah Persekutuan No 08(f)-381-11/2023(W) untuk kebenaran merayu kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan berhubung dengan Perintah Mahkamah Rayuan bertarikh 30 Oktober 2023 ("Perintah Mahkamah Rayuan"), dan apa-apa rayuan kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan, tanpa memerlukan kelulusan dan/atau persetujuan pelikuidasi bersesama, Encik Gabriel Teo Chun, yang dilantik oleh Perintah Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut;

2) Bahawa Perintah Mahkamah Rayuan yang diberikan pada 30 Oktober 2023 ditangguh sementara menunggu pendengaran dan penentuan penuh dan muktamad Notis Usul Mahkamah Persekutuan No 08(f)-381-11/2023(W) bagi kebenaran merayu kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan, dan jika kebenaran itu diberikan, apa-apa rayuan kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan;

3) Kos mengikut kausa rayuan; dan

4) Apa-apa relif lanjutan atau lain yang dianggap sesuai oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini. "

[2] The English Translation of prayers in encl 48 reads as follows:

1) That Mr Victor Saw Seng Kee, pursuant to s 69(4) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, be allowed to file and give instructions in relation to this application and the application in the Federal Court Notice of Motion No 08(f) -381-11/2023(W) for leave to appeal to the Federal Court in relation to the Court of Appeal's Order dated 30 October 2023 ("COA Order"), and in any appeal to the Federal Court, without requiring the approval and/or consent of the joint liquidator, Mr Gabriel Teo Chun, appointed by the COA Order itself;

2) That the COA Order granted on 30 October 2023 be stayed pending the hearing and full and final determination of the Federal Court Notice of Motion No 08(f)-381-11/2023(W) for leave to appeal to the Federal Court, and if such leave is granted, any appeal to the Federal Court;

3) Costs be in the cause of the appeal; and

4) Such further or other relief as deemed appropriate by this Honourable Court.

[3] Enclosure 48 was filed by the Respondent's Liquidator supposedly as a matter of 'honest prudence' so that one of the two co-liquidators can 'solidify' the legitimacy and competency of its unilateral actions and motion to Appeal to the Federal Court. But it appears to us that the intentions of the Respondent's Liquidator in filing encl 48 are to:

a. Unlawfully and unilaterally invoke the Board of Directors' post­winding up residuary power (as sole liquidator) on behalf of the Respondent-company; and

b. Unlawfully and unilaterally act as a sole liquidator (without the consent and mutual agreement of the other Court appointed joint co-liquidator).

[4] The Respondent (or more accurately the liquidator - Victor) knew of (and had full knowledge of) the legal impediment to his actions. Thus, the liquidator pre-emptively filed encl 48 in an attempt to stretch and skew the law so as to legitimise the liquidator's actions (which in reality were in breach of Order of the Court of Appeal and prevailing laws governing a company's residuary powers post­winding up).

[5] The Respondent (liquidator) also applied for a stay of a Court of Appeal decision ordering the liquidation process of Respondent- Company ("London Biscuits Berhad") to proceed with the appointment of a joint liquidator. On one hand the liquidator insisted on 'preserving the status quo '. But on the other hand the liquidator also insisted on NOT preserving the status quo and having the liquidation to proceed in the liquidator's 'preferred' configuration of a sole liquidator (and not a joint liquidator). The liquidator's prayers and contentions, in our view, are confusing and self-contradictory.

[6] Before proceeding any further, it is appropriate to fi


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top