Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

BANKRUPTCY – ADJUDICATION AND RECEIVING ORDERS – APPEAL AGAINST ANNULMENT

In brief

  •  Being declared bankrupt can have a financial and social impact on one’s life. With that stated, it is critical that the legislation guarantees that bankrupts and judgement debtors facing bankruptcy have enough safeguards and remedy. Some of the options available to a bankrupt include appealing the bankruptcy order, petitioning the court for a discharge order, petitioning the court to annul his or her bankruptcy, and so on. 
  •  Though most people are afraid of bankruptcy, some people believe that struggling businessmen or individuals should consider declaring bankruptcy since it shields them from creditors and allows them to get a fresh start financially.

How can one get out of a bankruptcy?

  • A bankrupt can exit bankruptcy by discharge or annulment. Because of the consequence, annulment is always the preferred approach to terminate one’s bankruptcy if it is feasible. When an adjudication order or a bankruptcy order is cancelled, the bankrupt is placed in the same situation as if no adjudication had occurred. The bankruptcy is completely erased, as if the debtor had never been insolvent. 

What conditions must the bankrupt meet in order to submit a motion to annul the adjudication order?

  •  First and foremost, 1) the bankrupt must demonstrate that the debt has been entirely satisfied, or 2) the order should not have been given. Furthermore, 3) if he has been declared bankrupt in Singapore, the distribution of his estate and effects among his creditors should take place there. In other words, if one is declared bankrupt in another country, such as the United Kingdom, the authorities from that nation are only permitted to take property situated in that country, whereas Malaysia authorities are not permitted to touch your estates or assets located in that country.  Moving forward, the adjudication order or bankruptcy order may be revoked if the bankrupt’s application for a composition or plan of arrangement is accepted by his creditors and approved by the court at the creditors’ meeting.

What options are available if bankruptcy is released in a way of discharge?

  • There are three ways a bankrupt can be discharged following the 2017 change to the Act, which took effect on October 6, 2017. To begin, a bankrupt can be discharged by a court order under S.33(3) of Insolvency Act 1967, by the Director General of Insolvency (DGI) under section 33A of Bankruptcy Act 1967, or by an automatic discharge under section 33C of Bankruptcy Act 1967
  •  Furthermore, each choice for the method of discharge described above has particular requirements that must be met in order for the bankruptcy to be discharged. If these requirements are satisfied, a bankrupt will be freed from bankruptcy three years after the date of submission of his statement of affairs.

Conclusion

  •  With the introduction of the new method of discharge, which was thankfully introduced into our Malaysian bankruptcy legislation prior to the pandemic, debtors and bankrupts should understand that bankruptcy is not the end of the world, and that bankruptcy may be an effective path to a fresh financial start.

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
en_USEN