Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN