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

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们