Zaki Azmi Chief Justice

Leave to appeal to the Federal Court was granted on the following question:

Whether the official receiver/liquidator can appoint an advocate and solicitor to bring an action or to defend an action solely by relying on s 236(2)(a)Companies Act 1965

From the question, it would seem that the main issue is the interpretation of s 236(1)(e)s 236(2)(a)Companies Act 1965

The dispute arose because Messrs Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis (Messrs Sidek Teoh) was appointed without authority of the court or the committee of inspection. The appellant argues that the authority of the court or the committee of inspection is not necessary because they are relying on s 236(2)(a).

At the outset of the appeal we posed to the appellant’s counsel the question as to whether this court’s ruling based on the question would benefit the appellant in this case. This question was put to the appellant for two reasons. Firstly this issue was raised during an application by the appellant for mareva injunction against the defendant to restrain the defendant from transferring its assets to a third party. That mareva injunction was dismissed by the learned High Court judge. The suit was filed in 1999. On