Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

INSOLVENCY ACT 1967 – A FRESH FINANCIAL START: THE EVOLUTION OF BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS IN MALAYSIA’S INSOLVENCY ACT

The main intent of the recent amendment to Insolvency Act which came into force on 6.10.2023 is to provide individuals with a chance for a new beginning. Everyone can encounter financial difficulties and these updated provisions aim to ensure that a person facing bankruptcy is not perpetually weighed down by prior financial missteps or unexpected hurdles.

Introduction

  • Bankruptcy in Malaysia is governed by the Insolvency Act 1967 which recent amendment has come into force on 6.10.2023.
  • A person can be made a bankruptcy by a court order if they are unable to pay their debts of RM100,000.00 and above.
  • There are several ways a bankruptcy may be discharged as follows:
  • Annulment;
  • Application to court;
  • Discharge by Director General of Insolvency (“DGI”); and
  • Completion of Bankruptcy Duration of 3 Years from the Date of Submission of Statement of Affairs (Automatic Discharge)

Annulment

  • Happens when the bankruptcy order should not have been made in the first place or when the debt is paid in full.

Application to Court

  • An application to court can be filed at any time after he is being adjudged bankrupt.
  • The application must be supported by a report from the DGI as to the bankrupt’s conduct and affairs.
  • When considering the application, the court will weigh between the rights of creditors to recover their debt with the bankrupt individual’s opportunity for a fresh start, taking into account the broader interest of public commercial reality.
  • Several key factors will be taken into consideration:
    • The bankrupt’s age and earnings;
    • Health conditions;
    • Length of time of the bankruptcy;
    • Reason leading to bankruptcy;
    • The proportion of debt settled;
    • Behaviour of the bankrupt;
    • Actions of the creditors; and/or
    • The count of creditors in opposition.

    Discharge through DGI

    • Starting 1.10.2003, the DGI is granted the authority to discharge when there is an application by the bankrupt.
    • This application can be submitted after a duration of 5 years after the date of the bankruptcy order.

    Completion of Bankruptcy Duration of 3 Years from the Date of Submission of Statement of Affairs (Automatic Discharge)

    • This is introduced in the Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act A1695) which came into force on 6.10.2023.
    • A bankrupt is automatically discharge on the expiration of 3 years from the date of the submission of the Statement of Affairs if the bankrupt has complied with all obligations and there is no objection from the creditors.
    • Application for objection by the creditor(s) must be filed in the court.

    Recent Post

    JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

    In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

    Read More »

    BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

    The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

    Read More »

    NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

    In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

    Read More »

    CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

    In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

    Read More »

    TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

    In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

    Read More »
    en_USEN
    × Contact Us