JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy J:

Introduction

[1] Once, twice, three times an appeal. Such, it would seem, is the tale of the present proceedings before this court, encapsulated in encls 44 and 45.

[2] It started with a Consent Judgment, recorded between the parties in 2016.

[3] What followed was a succession of appeals and interlocutory applications, a long and winding road of litigation that has brought the parties once again before this court.

[4] By its decision on 23 September 2025, this court dismissed both encls 44 and 45 with costs of RM20,000.00.

[5] Undeterred, the appellant has now filed two further Notices of Appeal, dated 22 October 2025, in encls 110 and 111, seeking to challenge that dismissal.

[6] These, then, are the grounds of judgment in respect of encls 44 and 45.

Undisputed Facts

[7] The Defendant had charged its property to the plaintiff as security for a loan facility.

[8] Following the defendant's default in repayment, the company went into receivership, and a Receiver and Manager was duly appointed.

[9] An Order for Sale in respect of the charged property was subsequently granted, and directions were issued for the property to be sold by way of public auction.

[10] The validity of the charge and the appointment of the Receiver and Manager are not in dispute.

The Prevailing Issue

[11] In the intervening period, the defendant company and/or its directors sought to intervene in these proceedings. The predominant issue arising in the present appeals, therefore, is whether the defendant company and/or its directors possess the requisite locus standi to intervene in the proceedings.

Salient Facts Of Enclosure 44 (Appeal Against Enclosure 1) And Enclosure 45 (Appeal Against Enclosure 27)

[12] The background to these two appeals may be briefly summarised. As the previous auction of the charged property was cancelled for want of bidders, the plaintiff filed an application in encl 1 seeking further directions from the court on the new reserve price and auction date pursuant to the existing Order for Sale.

[13] In response, the defendant company and/or its directors challenged the plaintiff's application by appointing Messrs Najiana Wan Balbir as solicitors (vide encl 5) and filing an affidavit in opposition (vide Enclosure 14), purportedly on behalf of the defendant company.

[14] At the same time, however, the Receiver and Manager of the defendant appointed a different firm, Messrs Thomas Wong & Co, and filed an affidavit in encl 8 on behalf of the defendant company.

[15] The Plaintiff, by its letter in encl 7, then raised a preliminary objection to the locus standi of the defendant company and/or its directors to appoint Messrs Najiana Wan Balbir and to file any affidavit or cause paper purportedly on behalf of the defendant in these proceedings.

[16] The Deputy Registrar upheld the plaintiff's preliminary objection, and accordingly rejected the defendant's affidavit and its objection to encl 1. The Deputy Registrar then allowed encl 1, fixing a new reserve price and auction date for the Property.

[17] This in turn led the defendant to file an appeal against the Deputy Registrar's decision, resulting in encl 44. It is worth noting that the scheduled auction of the Property on 15 January 2024 was subsequently cancelled once again, as there were no bidders.

[18] In parallel, the defendant also filed encl 27, seeking, among others, discovery of a valuation report allegedly conducted on behalf of the plaintiff in 2015 in relation to the charged Property.

[19] Once again, the plaintiff raised a similar preliminary objection on the issue of locus standi, and the Deputy Registrar upheld the objection, thereby dismissing encl 27. The Defendant subsequently appealed against this ruling, resulting in encl 45.

[20] In essence, the Deputy Registrar's decisions to (i) dismiss the defendant's objection to encl 1 and (ii) dismiss encl 27, were premised on two principal findings:

• First, that the defendant company and its directors lacked locus standi to