Joint liquidators can be removed if they exhibit unfitness or dysfunction, impacting the liquidation process, as per statutory provisions.

Table of Content
1. appeals regarding the necessity for joint liquidators to act collaboratively. (Para 1 , 2)
2. judicial observations on the role and duties of liquidators. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court reviews incompetent actions of liquidators affecting stakeholder interests. (Para 6 , 11)
4. grounds for the removal of liquidators due to dysfunctional behavior. (Para 9 , 10)
5. outcome permitting the appointment of the official receiver as liquidator. (Para 12 , 14)

[1] The appellant/intervener appeals against the decision of the High Court which had refused the application for the removal of joint liquidator.

[2] It is not in dispute that there were many grievances against the first liquidator, Ricky Thong and an application to remove him as early as the year 2011, was not successful. His Lordship Lee Swee Seng J, in lieu of removing Ricky Thong ordered the appointment of another person by the name of Narendra Kumar Jasani, to be joint liquidators. The judgment of the learned judge is reported as Hew Kiang Hoe & Anor v. Shencourt Properties Sdn Bhd, [2011] 7 CLJ 158, and sets out the jurisprudence for the removal of the liquidator. This judgment must be read together with the previous judgment, as well as the judgment under appeal to appreciate our grounds in the proper perspective.

[3] It is important to note that Lee Swee Seng J had specifically pronounced in the grounds of judgment as follows:

"Pronouncement

Having regard to all the above consideration, justice of this case would have been served by appointing an additional Liquidator to act together with the current Liquidator. The Court thus appointed Narenda Kumar of Grand Thornton as the joint liquidator with Ricky Thong Yew Fook from 26 April 2011.

The appointment is subject always to a single Liquidator's fees and subject to directions under s 232(7) of the Companies Act which this Court shall give when both Liquidators appear before the Court on a next mention date fixed.

The Court also takes into consideration that this will least impede whatever further instructions might be necessary for the preparation to oppose the appeal being fixed on 18 May 2011 and subsequent further appeals if any. I also ordered costs of RM8,000.00 is to be paid by current Liquidator personally to the Petitioners.

Postscript

This Court has fixed 24 May 2011 as the next mention date for the Liquidators to brief the Court on the progress in the appeal to the Court of Appeal and the challenges they may face in moving forward. The Petitioners' solicitors and the supporting Creditors' solicitors as well as the Contributory solicitors have been notified of the mention date too. Whilst past relationships between the Liquidators and the Creditors have been characterised more by mistrust and suspicion, it is hoped that this and subsequent mention dates fixed as parties move along their timeline would allow the Liquidators to touch base with the various stakeholders. As and when they have found enough momentum and established the human dynamics to go on their own steam and having open channels of communication with one another, this Court would then recede into the background.

The Court's door remains, as always, open to any party who would knock on it, to seek directions on any matter that may arise in the course of liquidation as envisaged in s 236(1) and 236(3) of the Companies Act. Parties may not always see eye-to-eye on every issue that may arise, but they are encouraged to look in the same direction together.

Dated: 23 May 2011."

[4] There are two main points in the pronouncement referred to the above. One is to act jointly and the other to seek directions from the Court for any matters arising.

[5] As a general rule, wilful disobedience to any judgment or order, direction or any other process of Court, etc may amount to contempt.

[6] It must be emphasised here that liquidators by virtue of r 63 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 are officers of the Court. They are professionals as well as per the Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document