Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
EMIPRIMA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
WONDERFUL CASTLE SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. court's observations on liquidator's remuneration. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments on fairness and reasonableness of remuneration. (Para 15 , 24) |
| 4. legal provisions on liquidator's remuneration. (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court's duty to assess remuneration fairness. (Para 20 , 22 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. inconsistency in court's decisions. (Para 30 , 31 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. guidelines for assessing liquidator's remuneration. (Para 36 , 37 , 42) |
| 8. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 43 , 44) |
Introduction
[1] Dissatisfied with the Committee of Inspection's (COI) resolution passed through a meeting held via WhatsApp meeting chatgroup messages to allow a remuneration amounting to RM9,296,304.00 to be paid to the liquidator on 18 January 2021, Emiprima Sdn Bhd (the appellant) filed a Notice of Motion to the High Court under s 479 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) for the Court to assess and vary the remuneration of the Liquidator. The High Court dismissed the appellant's Notice of Motion with costs. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant appealed.
The Background Facts
[2] Wonde
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
