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

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us