Validity of executed bankruptcy documents upheld based on authorized execution by a sole director, affirming authority of solicitors in bankruptcy notices.

Introduction

[1] These Grounds concern the Notice of Appeal to the Judge in Chambers dated 9 September 2024 (Encl. 188),from the dismissal of the Notice of Intention to Oppose Creditor's Petition (Encl. 46) by the Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR").

[2] The parties' submissions filed herein are:

(a) JC's submissions dated 16 October 2024 (Encl. 198) (JC Subs-1);

(b) JD's submissions dated 18 October 2024 (Encl. 192) (JD Subs-1);

(c) JD's submissions dated 28 October 2024 (Encl. 193) (JD Subs-2).

[3] The cause papers are as follows.

(a) Request to Issue Bankruptcy Notice (Encl. 1)

(b) Bankruptcy Notice (Encl. 2)

(c) Creditor's Petition (Encl. 9)

(d) Affidavit Verifying Creditor's Petition (Encl. 10)

(e) Bankruptcy Deposit (Encl. 11)

(f) Amended Creditor's Petition (Encl. 41)

(g) Amended Affidavit Verifying Creditor's Petition (Encl. 47)

(h) Notice of Intention to Oppose Creditor's Petition (Encl. 46)

(i) Affidavit in Opposition by the Judgment Debtor (Encl. 181)

(j) Affidavit in Reply by Judgment Creditor (Encl. 182)

(k) Affidavit in Reply by Judgment Debtor (Encl. 183)

>(l) Judgment Creditor's Written Submission (Encl. 184)

(m) Judgment Creditor's Bundle of Authorities (Encl. 185)

(n) Judgment Debtor's Written Submission (Encl. 186)

(o) Judgment Debtors Reply Submission (Encl. 187)

(p) Notice of Appeal to Judge in Chambers (Encl. 188)

[4] The Contents of these submissions are as out below.

[5] In my judgment, the SAR rightly dismissed JD's Encl 46.

Introduction

[6] With reference to the Notice of Intention to Oppose Creditor's Petition (Encl. 46), the Judgment Debtor ("the JD") had filed Affidavit in Opposition (Encl. 181) that set out the grounds in support of this appeal in Encl 1.

[7] The JC raised four (4) grounds.

(a) The Request to Issue Bankruptcy Notice (Encl. 1) is not valid as Messrs. Peter Chambers was not an officer of the Judgment Creditor ("JC"), within s 133 of the Insolvency Act 1967 and r 215 of the Insolvency Rules 2017 .

(b) The Request to Issue Bankruptcy Notice (Encl. 1) is not valid, as the same should have been executed by two (2) authorised officers of the JC under s 66 of the Companies Act 2016 (" CA 2016").

(c) The Creditor's Petition (Encl. 9), as well as the Amended Creditor's Petition (Encl. 41), are defective as they should have been executed by two (2) authorised officers of the JC under s 66 of CA 2016.

(d) The Affidavit Verifying Creditor's Petition (Encl. 10), as well as the Amended Affidavit Verifying Creditor's Petition (Encl. 47) are defective, as the same should have been executed by two (2) authorised officers of the JC under s 66 of CA 2016.

The Issues & The Merits

[8] It can be seen that the four (4) challenges are as to the authority to execute various documents and case papers filed in these bankruptcy proceedings. These include the execution of the Request to Issue Bankruptcy Notice, the Creditor's Petition and the affidavits verifying the Creditor's Petition. I have dealt with a number if not substantially all these procedural issues in previous proceedings against this JD, see Re: Muhammad Zahir Sanjay; Ex-Parte: Legasi Senada Sdn Bhd 2025 MarsdenLR 1040 .

[9] There are no issues that go to the merits.

First & Second Issues

[10] First, the Request to Issue Bankruptcy Notice (Encl. 1) is allegedly invalid as JC's solicitors, Messrs. Peter Chambers were not officers of the JC under s 133 of the Insolvency Act 1967 , and r 215 of the Insolvency Rules 2017 . The Request to