Malaysia: The Grim Reaper Cometh, But Which One?

Last Updated: 15 February 2016
Article by Eyza Farizan Mokhtar

Eyza Farizan Mokhtar examines a fight over the appointment of a provisional liquidator

Can a company hasten its impending death by committing suicide? While awaiting death, can a company choose its own executioner?

These were the issues faced by the High Court in Malayan Banking Berhad v Chip Lam Seng Enterprise Berhad [2014] 1 LNS 1583.

On 27 October 2014, the High Court decided that the Respondent could not avoid a compulsory winding up by undertaking a voluntary winding up. In coming to its decision, the High Court also discussed the court's power to appoint a provisional liquidator pending the disposal of a winding up petition.


The Respondent, Chip Lam Seng Enterprise Berhad, is the holding company of the "Chip Lam Seng" group of companies ("CLS Group"), a family business controlled by one Mr. Tan Keng Beng ("TKB").

The CLS Group was in financial difficulties and appointed Grant Thornton Consulting Sdn Bhd ("Grant Thornton") to prepare a debt restructuring proposal. Grant Thornton prepared a report dated 30 November 2012 which stated that as at December 2012, the CLS Group had a total debt of RM500,805,244 owing to 11 banks and RM10,746,766 owing to trade creditors. The Petitioner, Malayan Banking Berhad, was the largest creditor, holding 51.39% of the total indebtedness of the CLS Group.

On 19 December 2013, the Petitioner obtained a summary judgment against the Respondent for a sum of RM8,886,339.01. The Respondent did not appeal against the judgment.

After the Respondent had failed to comply with a notice issued under section 218(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 ("CA") in respect of the judgment sum, the Petitioner presented a petition to wind up the Respondent on 28 August 2014 and served the Petition on the Respondent at its registered address on the same day.

On 2 September 2014, the Petitioner's solicitors informed the Respondent's solicitors that the Petition had been filed and the Petitioner would be filing an application to appoint a Provisional Liquidator ("PL").

Two days later, on 4 September 2014, another firm of solicitors informed the Petitioner's solicitors that they had instructions to accept service of the Petitioner's application on behalf of the Respondent. On 5 September 2014, the Petitioner filed its application to appoint a PL. From the affidavits filed in the proceedings, it came to light that a flurry of events had taken place with devil's haste on 5 September 2014.

The Respondent's two directors affirmed a statutory declaration that the Respondent could not "by reason of its liabilities continue its business" and signed a directors' circular resolution which resolved, among others, that there be a creditors' voluntary winding up of the Respondent, for one Mr. TCK to be appointed as the Respondent's PL, and for a meeting of the Respondent's creditors to be summoned on 25 September 2014.

It also came to light that on 2 September 2014, TKB had filed a suit against the Respondent to claim for RM488,444,360 based on an alleged undertaking and indemnity given by the Respondent to TKB. TKB obtained a judgment in default of appearance against the Respondent on 18 September 2014, thereby purportedly making TKB the largest creditor of the Respondent.


The Court found that there were no cases in Malaysia nor in any of the countries with provisions similar to the CA in their companies' legislation, i.e. Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and England, which could shed light on the validity of the Respondent's voluntary winding up by way of an appointment of a PL.

Where a winding up petition has already been presented on the ground of a company's inability to pay debts before a company's voluntary winding up, the Court held that section 276 of the CA requires the company to obtain leave of the winding up court before it could pass a special resolution under section 254(1)(b) of the CA to commence voluntary winding up. In this respect, the Court relied on Hasjuara (M) Sdn Bhd v Bio Science Capital Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 7 MLJ 33 and the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Re North Western Fruitgrowers Pty Ltd [1965] VR 306.

The Court referred to the Australian cases of Re Horsham Kyosan Engineering Co Ltd [1972] VR 403, Re South Australian Air Conditioning Centre Pty Ltd (1977) 2 ACLR 539 and Re Akai Australia Pty Ltd [1978] 3 ACLR 353 as authorities that allow a company to apply for retrospective leave from the winding up court under a provision of the Australian companies legislation which is similar to section 276 of the CA.

The Court, relying on Re Septimus Parsonage & Co [1901] 2 Ch 424 (which was referred to by the Court of Appeal in Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [2001] 4 CLJ 549 and subsequently, by the Federal Court in the same case reported as Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [2002] 4 CLJ 401), also held that if a company commenced voluntary winding up with the intention to interfere with the winding up court's jurisdiction, such interference may amount to a contempt of the winding up court.


The Court gave four reasons for refusing retrospective leave to the Respondent.

Firstly, the Court ruled that the Respondent's voluntary winding up was not bona fide and was contrived to thwart, unlawfully, the Petition and the Petitioner's application to appoint a PL.

Secondly, the Court found that there were matters and transactions which required investigation by a compulsory winding up liquidator under the supervision of the winding up court.

Thirdly, the Court took into account the unanimous consensus by the Petitioner and the Supporting Creditors in opposing the Respondent's Application and the large amount of debt owing by the Respondent to them. The Court referred to two Australian cases, Re South Australian Air Conditioning Centre Pty Ltd and Re Akai Australia Pty Ltd, which decided that the wishes of the creditors is a relevant fact to be considered.

Fourthly, the Court found that the Respondent had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that there are special circumstances to show that the Respondent's voluntary liquidation was preferable to a compulsory winding up by the court. The Court held that the five reasons advanced by the Respondent did not amount to special circumstances which showed that the Respondent's voluntary liquidation was preferable and hence, did not justify leave under section 276 of the CA. The Respondent's five reasons were as follows:

  1. That a creditors' voluntary winding up was "more efficient and cost effective";
  2. A creditors' voluntary winding up would not trouble the winding up court;
  3. There would be no prejudice to the Respondent's creditors as they could ventilate any issue before the PL appointed at the Respondent's Creditors' Meeting;
  4. A creditors' voluntary winding up was necessary as the Respondent had concluded that it could not continue its affairs due to its financial state; and
  5. A creditors' voluntary winding up was a more democratic process as it took into account the wishes of the Respondent's creditors and contributories.

The Court observed that if the Respondent's five reasons amounted to special circumstances to justify leave being granted under section 276, this could encourage abuses of the voluntary winding up procedure as has happened in this case.

Consequently, the Court allowed the Petition as a compulsory winding up was to be preferred as it was more advantageous to the Respondent's general body of creditors than the Respondent's voluntary winding up.


The Respondent contended that the Petitioner should file a new suit under section 266 of the CA to invalidate TCK's appointment as the Respondent's PL and remove TCK as the Respondent's PL. The Court did not agree with this contention on four grounds.

Firstly, relying on Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd v Yong Kong Fatt [2007] 4 CLJ 613, the Court held that section 276 of the CA also conferred power on the winding up court to do whatever was "reasonably necessary" after deciding whether to grant leave or otherwise - this would include the power to annul TCK's appointment as PL and to set aside his appointment as the PL for the Respondent's voluntary winding up.

Secondly, relying on Progress Printers and Distributors Pty Ltd v Production and Graphics Communications Pty Ltd [1996] 21 ACSR 241, the Court held that if the winding up court could appoint a liquidator for a company's compulsory winding up in place of a liquidator for a voluntary winding up who had already carried out substantial work in the voluntary winding up, the Court certainly had the power to remove a PL appointed for a voluntary winding up.

Thirdly, the Court held that section 266 applied in a voluntary winding up. As the Court had refused leave for the Respondent to continue its voluntary winding up, the section had no application in this case.

Fourthly, the Court held that if the Court agreed with the Respondent's contention, there would be duplicity in proceedings which should not be encouraged, more so when the proposed new action would not be heard by the winding up court which is the appropriate forum. The Court observed that the object of section 276 of the CA was to enable all matters regarding both voluntary and compulsory winding up of a company to be comprehensively decided by the winding up court.

The Court declared the appointment of the Respondent's PL as null and void and set aside the appointment of TCK as the Respondent's PL. The Court held that TCK's appointment as the Respondent's voluntary winding up PL lacked bona fides. Further, as the Court had already refused leave for the Respondent to continue its voluntary winding up, TCK could not continue as PL for the Respondent's voluntary winding up.

The Court also based its decision on the fact that by virtue of section 255(3) of the CA, the appointment of the PL in the voluntary winding up had lapsed after one month as there was no extension of the appointment by the Official Receiver and a liquidator had not been appointed for the Respondent's voluntary winding up.

The Court also observed that TCK had not commenced any work as PL for the Respondent's voluntary winding up.

The Court then exercised its discretion to allow the Petitioner's application to appoint a PL as the Court found that there was "sufficient ground" to do so under rule 35(1) of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972. The Court provided a guide as to what constitutes "sufficient ground", namely that there must be evidence that ultimately the winding up court is likely to make a winding up order sought by the petitioner, there is a need to preserve the status quo i.e. to preserve the assets of the respondent company, there is some degree of urgency to appoint a PL, consideration of the balance of convenience of the competing interests and whether it is right to do so in the circumstances.


This case is significant as the learned Judicial Commissioner has through an insightful and carefully considered judgment, shown that the Court will not permit the voluntary winding up process to be abused in order to pre-empt a compulsory winding up.

The appeal filed by the Respondent was subsequently withdrawn. Thus the matter is laid to rest until the ghosts are resurrected in a similar case which may come before the Malaysian court in the future.

Originally published in Skrine's Legal Insights Newsletter, Issue 1/2015, March 2015.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions