JUDGMENT

Ian HC Chin J:

Introduction

This is an appeal by Kang Wah Construction Sdn Bhd, which is in liquidation, against the decision of the Deputy Registrar who had on 5 August 1999 dismissed the application of the plaintiff for attachment of the properties under s. 19 of the Debtors Act. The learned Deputy Registrar dismissed the application solely on the ground that the firm of advocates, Messrs Teo Sebom, Tan Madhi, who appeared for the plaintiff company under liquidation was appointed by the liquidator without the authority of the court or committee of inspection which is required by s. 236(1)(e) of the Companies Act 1965 (the Act). This objection was taken by the defendants Chai Ai Min Property Sdn. Bhd. and Pacific Bank Berhad.

The Law

The first question that comes to mind is why should the defendants be allowed to raise such a point? Buckley on The Companies Act, 13 edn, p. 517 has this to say:

The defendant to proceedings brought by the liquidator in the name of the company cannot take the objection that the sanction of the Court has not been obtained.

The case relied on as supporting that proposition of law is Dublin City Distillery v. Doherty [1914] AC 823 where, int