Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

COMPANIES AND CORPORATION – JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT – COURT APPROVAL

In brief 

  •  COVID-19 infections in Malaysia are on the rise as we begin a new year. Due to a lack of options, the Malaysian government has reinstated the Movement Control Order (MCO), which prohibits a number of industries from operating. The MCO will almost surely push the economy into reverse shortly after it emerges from recession, putting even greater strain on struggling businesses. We should expect to see more corporations use corporate restructuring tools like Judicial Management, Corporate Voluntary Arrangements, and Schemes of Arrangement to salvage their failing businesses as a matter of necessity in these difficult circumstances.

Q. So what is an overview of judicial management? 

A. When a corporation becomes insolvent, Malaysia has historically resorted to liquidation or winding-up processes. The Companies Act 2016 (the Act) has incorporated several restructuring tools, including judicial management as an alternative to liquidations, into Malaysia’s insolvency environment. 

Who can apply?

  •  A company, its directors, a creditor, including any “contingent or potential creditor,” or all or any of those parties, jointly or separately, may file a judicial management application under Section 405 of the Act.

Example: The court decided that the party claiming to be a creditor has standing to petition for judicial management in the matter of Spacious Glory Sdn Bhd v Coconut Three sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 1188. The term ‘contingent or prospective creditor,’ according to the Court, refers to a situation in which the corporation may be exposed to a current responsibility based on the occurrence of a future event or at a future event. The term ‘creditor’ must refer to anyone who has a financial claim against the company. On the balance of probability, the applicant had established that he was a creditor. 

What tests are required to be completed? 

  •  The Court may make a judicial management order under S.405(1) of the Act if the court is satisfied that the company is or will be unable to pay its obligations when the court is satisfied that the company is or will be unable to pay its debts. 
  •  Furthermore, the Court may consider that making the order would be likely to achieve at least one of the following goals: a) the company’s survival as a going concern, b) the approval of a scheme of arrangement between the company and any of the persons listed in S.366 of the Act, and c) a more advantageous realisation of the company’s assets than a winding up. 
  •  However, there is an exception to the above test. S.405(5) of the Act gives the Court the authority to issue a judicial management order and appoint a judicial manager if it believes the “public interest” necessitates it, even if the applicant fails to meet the preceding criteria.

Example: In the matter of Spacious Glory Sdn Bhd v Coconut Three Sdn Bhd [2022] 7 MLJ 76, the court will now evaluate whether issuing the order is likely to achieve one or more of the objects listed in Section 405(1)(b) of the Companies Act 2016. The court next addressed the applicants’ argument that the respondent had allegedly failed to present a reasonable solution to the issues at hand, and that as a result, the respondent’s failure to hire an attorney to oppose the petition could not be dismissed. In this matter, the judgement of the Court of Appeal in the case of CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd v Wellcom Communication (NS) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] was used.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us