AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL

JE8/2020 6 March 2020

Affin Bank Berhad [2020] 2 MLRA v. Abu Bakar Ismail 99

AFFIN BANK BERHAD v. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL

Federal Court, Putrajaya Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Azahar Mohamed CJM, David Wong Dak Wah CJSS, Rohana Yusuf PCA, Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ [Civil Appeal No: 03(f)-05-10-2017 (W)] 25 February 2020 Bankruptcy: Adjudication and receiving orders — Annulment of — Whether court might subsequently annul adjudication and receiving orders under s 105(1) Bankruptcy Act 1967 after already finding said orders rightly made — Solvency of debtor under s 6(3) read with s 105(1) Bankruptcy Act 1967 — Whether must necessarily relate to his ability to pay his debts as they became due as at time of hearing of creditor’s petition This appeal concerned the law on annulment of bankruptcy under s 105(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 (“BA 1967”). The appellant (“Bank”) had obtained a summary judgment against the respondent (“debtor”), and thereafter commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. Although the debtor resisted the bankruptcy proceedings, adjudication and receiving orders (“AORO”) were recorded against him. The debtor then filed an application to annul the AORO, which application was unsuccessful. Nine months later, the debtor filed a second annulment application, which was allowed by the Registrar of the High Court. The decision of the Registrar was affirmed by the High Court judge, and the Bank’s subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The Bank thus obtained leave from this court to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal on, inter alia, the following questions of law: (i) where the court had already found that the AORO had been rightly made, whether the court might subsequently annul the AORO under s 105(1) BA 1967, on the basis that such orders “ought not to have been made”, based on new arguments regarding the debtor’s ability to pay his debts or subsequent change of circumstances; and (ii) whether the solvency of a debtor, under s 6(3) read with s 105(1) BA 1967, must necessarily relate to his ability to pay his debts as they became due, as at the time of the hearing of the creditor’s petition, and not relate to his ability subsequent to the AORO made. Held (allowing the appeal with costs): (1) The issue in relation to the first question revolved on the point of time when the debtor was considered to be able to pay his debts. The debtor submitted that as in the case of Bungsar Hill Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Dr Amir Farid Datuk Isahak, he had assets to satisfy his debt. However, the pertinent authorities clearly established that the relevant date to consider whether the debtor was able to pay his debts was the date of the making of the AORO. The first Affin Bank Berhad 100 v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2020] 2 MLRA

question was, therefore, answered in the negative. The case of Bungsar Hill Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Dr Amir Farid Datuk Isahak was certainly not an authority to support the debtor’s contention that the date for consideration whether a debtor ought not to have been adjudged a bankrupt, was after the bankruptcy order was made. The position taken by the debtor went against the principles of law. (paras 17, 21, 30, 31 & 33) (2) As for the second question, applying the principles set out in the established cases, the test for solvency of a debtor must be of the debtor’s ability to pay his debts as they become due, as at the time of the hearing of the creditor’s petition, when the AORO was made. The debtor’s argument that the time to consider whether a bankruptcy order ought to have been made, must be after such an order and not at the time of the order, was against the established principles of law. A bankrupt could always avail himself of the relief of annulment or discharge by making payment from monies recovered subsequent to the AORO, to the Director General of Insolvency. The second question was thus answered in the affirmative. (para 47) (3) The Court of Appeal erred in failing to appreciate sufficiently that the solvency of the debtor under s 6(3) read together with s 105(1) BA 1967 must necessarily relate to his ability to pay his debts as they become due, at the time of hearing of the creditor’s petition. It was trite that the solvency did not relate to the debtor’s ability to pay his debts subsequent to the making of the AORO. Further, it related to ‘commercial solvency’ and not ‘balance sheet solvency’. On the facts of the instant case, at the time the AORO was granted against the debtor, there was no evidence that he was solvent. No consideration ought to be given to the debtor’s ability to pay his debts based on a subsequent change of circumstances. If at all, any change of circumstances post-AORO, ie any recovery of monies by the debtor would offer the debtor an opportunity to pay the debts in full which would enable him to obtain an annulment order, having made such full payment. But this was not done. The debtor made no payment to satisfy the judgment debt. (paras 48-49) Case(s) referred to: Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v. Bassanio Teo Yang [2009] 2 MLRH 668 (refd) Bank of Australasia v. Hall [1907] 4 CLR 1514 (folld) Bungsar Hill Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Dr Amir Farid Datuk Isahak [2005] 1 MLRA 328 (distd) Gulf Business Construction (M) Sdn Bhd v. Israq Holding Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLRA 411 (folld) Lafarge Concrete (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Gold Trend Builders Sdn Bhd [2012] 4 MLRA 112 (folld) Lian Keow Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Anor v. Overseas Credit Finance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1987] 1 MLRA 672 (folld) Paulin v. Paulin and Another [2010] 1 WLR 1057 (folld) Re Mat Shah Safuan; Ex Parte United Asian Bank Bhd [1990] 4 MLRH 485 (folld) Affin Bank Berhad [2020] 2 MLRA v. Abu Bakar Ismail 101

Sama Credit & Leasing Sdn Bhd v. Pegawai Pemegang Harta Malaysia [1995] 1 MLRA 183 (folld) Sri Hartamas Dvpt Sdn Bhd v. MBf Finance Bhd [1992] 1 MLRA 311 (folld)

Legislation referred to: Bankruptcy Act 1967, ss 6(2), (3), 33, 105(1) Companies Act 1965, s 218(2)(a) Insolvency Act 1986 [UK], s 282(1)

Counsel: For the appellant: Yoong Sin Min (Sharon Lim Pei Hsien & Sanjiv Naddan with her); M/s Shook Lin & Bok For the respondent: Abu Bakar Ismail; M/s C Leo Camoens

[For the Court of Appeal judgment, please refer to Affin Bank Berhad v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2017] 4 MLRA 603]

JUDGMENT Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ: Introduction

[1] This appeal concerns the law on annulment of bankruptcy under s 105(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 (“the BA 1967”).

Background Facts

[2] The appellant (“the Bank”) obtained a summary judgment against the respondent (“the debtor”) on 8 July 2004. Thereafter the Bank commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. The bankruptcy proceedings were resisted by the debtor wherein he filed:

(i) an application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice on 29 November 2010; and

(ii) Notice of Intention to oppose the Creditor's Petition on 20 June 2012.

[3] The High Court dismissed his application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice. The decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The debtor’s attempt to oppose the Creditor’s Petition also suffered the same fate. His Notice of Intention to Oppose the Creditor’s Petition was dismissed by the High Court and was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

[4] Following the dismissal of the debtor’s application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice and to oppose the Creditor’s Petition, a Receiving Order Affin Bank Berhad 102 v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2020] 2 MLRA

and an Adjudication Order (“the AORO”) was recorded against him on 17 January 2013.

[5] On 16 December 2013, the debtor filed an application to annul the AORO (“the first annulment application”) pursuant to s 105(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 (“the BA 1967”). The first annulment application was made on the ground that the debtor ought not to have been adjudged a bankrupt as he was solvent and that he had the means to repay his debts.

[6] In support of his first annulment application, the debtor averred that:

(i) he had assets in Singapore in the form of a Singapore Court of Appeal judgment (“the Singapore judgment”) dated 20 February 2013 which was granted in his favour;

(ii) the damages awarded pursuant to the said Singapore judgment (if assessed) would have a value in excess of SGD$35 million; and

(iii) that he had various claims against third parties in Singapore and as a result of the AORO, he was prevented from conducting his cases in Singapore and that he had difficulties in paying legal fees in Singapore.

[7] On 7 January 2014, the Registrar of the High Court dismissed the first annulment application. In her brief grounds of judgment the Registrar made the following findings:

(i) that in an annulment application, the material date for consideration is the AORO date;

(ii) that the Singapore judgment was obtained after the AORO date and therefore could not be taken into account for an application under s 105 of the BA 1967;

(iii) that under s 105 of the BA 1967, the debtor has to prove that he ‘ought not to have been adjudged bankrupt’ at the time AORO was recorded against him which he had failed to prove;

(iv) that the debtor had failed to prove that he was solvent as at the date of the AORO; and

(v) that the debtor had never raised the issue that he was solvent in his previous application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice and in his application to Oppose the Creditor’s Petition and/or when the AORO was recorded against him.

[8] Dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar, the debtor appealed to the High Court, which appeal was allowed. However, on appeal by the Bank to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the High Court Judge was reversed and Affin Bank Berhad [2020] 2 MLRA v. Abu Bakar Ismail 103

the AORO were restored. The debtor did not file any application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the order of the Court of Appeal restoring the AORO.

[9] What the debtor did instead was to file, nine months later, the second annulment application on inter alia, the following grounds:

(i) that on 13 April 2015, pursuant to the Singapore judgment, the Singapore High Court had assessed damages in favour of the debtor in the sum of SGD$9,928,473.75 together with interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum from 15 September 2009 to date of payment;

(ii) that the damages which was awarded against one Chenet Finance Limited was to be paid by Chenet Finance Limited to the Director General of Insolvency Malaysia (“DGI”) as the receiver of the debtor; and

(iii) that the debtor had been awarded costs of SGD$15,000.00.

[10] The debtor thus alleged that he had assets in Singapore totalling SGD$12,684,960.97 (equivalent to RM33,551,721.76) which exceeded the Bank’s claim as admitted by the DGI, in the sum of RM8,342,774.10.

[11] The second annulment application was allowed by the Registrar of the High Court. The decision of the Registrar was affirmed by the High Court judge. Against the decision of the High Court Judge, the Bank appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed. In dismissing the said appeal, the Court of Appeal held that:

(i) the AORO was rightly made on 17 January 2012 as at that material time, there was no evidence of the debtor’s solvency or ability to pay;

(ii) when the Singapore judgment was delivered on 20 February 2013, the debtor had a right to apply under s 105(1) of the BA 1967 as there was sufficient evidence to show that he was solvent;

(iii) there was a change of circumstances as the DGI was not able to assess damages under the Singapore judgment since 17 January 2013; and

(iv) since there was a change of circumstances, res judicata does not apply.

Proceedings In The Federal Court

[12] The Bank obtained leave from this court to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the following questions of law: Affin Bank Berhad 104 v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2020] 2 MLRA

(i) Where the court had already found that the adjudication and receiving orders had been rightly made, whether the court may subsequently annul the adjudication and receiving orders under s 105(1) of the BA 1967, on the basis that such orders “ought not to have been made”, based on new arguments regarding the debtor’s ability to pay his debts or subsequent change of circumstances?

(ii) Whether the solvency of a debtor, under s 6(3) read with s 105(1) of the BA 1967, must necessarily relate to his ability to pay his debts as they became due, as at the time of the hearing of the creditor’s petition, and not relate to his ability subsequent to the receiving and adjudication orders made.

(iii) Where the adjudication and receiving orders have been made on the basis that the debtor is unable to pay his debts and where the debtor’s first application for the annulment of the adjudication and receiving orders has already been dismissed, does the principle of res judicata apply to preclude a second annulment application?

(iv) Where a debtor is able to recover monies subsequent to the proper making of the adjudication and receiving orders against him, whether the court ought to allow his application to annul the adjudication and receiving orders, rather than for him to forward such monies to the Director General of Insolvency, for the settlement of his debts and to discharge his bankruptcy.

[13] We had answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative. We found no necessity to answer the third and the fourth questions. We now provide our reasons.

Parties’ Arguments

[14] It was submitted for the Bank that the Court of Appeal erred:

(i) in not giving due consideration to the fact that the debtor had already failed in his first annulment application;

(ii) in considering and taking into account the Singapore judgment of 20 February 2013 which took place subsequent to the making of the AORO and which had already been one of the grounds for the debtor’s failed first annulment application; and

(iii) in considering and relying on the DGI’s lack of ability in assessing damages in Singapore, which was not even raised as a ground under the second annulment application.

[15] For the debtor, learned counsel argued that the time to consider whether a bankruptcy order ought not to have been made at the date of the adjudication Affin Bank Berhad [2020] 2 MLRA v. Abu Bakar Ismail 105

must be after such an order, not at the time of the order. To hold otherwise, submitted learned counsel, would be to frustrate the intent of s 105 which is to afford relief of annulment to a person adjudicated bankrupt.

[16] Learned counsel for the debtor relied on Bungsar Hill Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Dr Amir Farid Datuk Isahak [2005] 1 MLRA 328, where the Court of Appeal after reviewing the facts of the case and new evidence provided in the appeal regarding the debtor’s ability to pay his debt, exercised its discretion to annul the bankruptcy order. The decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed by this court. It was therefore posited for the debtor that the High Court Registrar, the High Court Judge and the Court of Appeal did not err in ordering/affirming the annulment of the bankruptcy order.

Our Decision

The First Question

[17] The issue in relation to the first question revolves on the point of time when the debtor is considered to be able to pay his debts.

[18] Section 6 of the BA 1967 provides for proceedings and order on creditor’s petition where subsections (2) and (3) read:

“(2) At the hearing the court shall require proof of-

(a) the debt of the petitioning creditor; and

(b) the act of bankruptcy or, if more than one act of bankruptcy is alleged in the petition, some of the alleged acts of bankruptcy; and

(c) if the debtor does not appear, the service of the petition, and if satisfied with the proof may make a bankruptcy order in pursuance of the petition.

(3) If the court is not satisfied with the proof of the petitioning creditor’s debt or of the act of bankruptcy or of the service of the petition, or is satisfied by the debtor that he is able to pay his debts, or that for other sufficient cause no order ought to be made, the court may dismiss the petition.”

[19] The annulment of bankruptcy order is provided for in s 105 and subsection (1) of s 105 states:

“(1) Where in the opinion of the court a debtor ought not to have been adjudged a bankrupt, or where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the debts of the bankrupt are paid in full, or where it appears to the court that proceedings are pending in the Republic of Singapore for the distribution of the bankrupt’s estate and effects among his creditors under the bankruptcy or insolvency laws of the Republic of Singapore and that the distribution ought to take place in that country, the court may annul the bankruptcy order.” Affin Bank Berhad 106 v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2020] 2 MLRA

[20] The Court of Appeal, in affirming the decision of the High Court and in allowing the second annulment’s application had considered and accepted the argument raised by the debtor that he could pay his debts due to the Singapore judgment obtained subsequent to the AORO (“adjudication/bankruptcy order”) and subsequent to the dismissal of the first annulment application.

[21] Learned counsel for the debtor submitted that as in Bungsar Hill v. Dr Amir Farid (supra), the debtor in the instant appeal had assets to satisfy his debt.

[22] Given the reliance by the debtor on Bungsar Hill (supra), we will now examine the case. In Bungsar Hill (supra), the respondent/debtor had been a partner with two other doctors in a partnership called “Poliklinik Kotaraya”. The respondent had a 35% share in the partnership. In 1989, a dispute arose between the partners leading to the filing of several suits in court. On 13 March 1990, the High Court appointed two interim receivers and managers to manage the partnership pending final settlement of the dispute. The receivers were, among others authorised by the court to pay each of the partners a monthly allowance of RM4,000.00. On 30 November 1990, the appellant obtained summary judgment against the respondent for the sum of RM32,095.41 together with interest and costs. On 12 May 1993, a bankruptcy notice was issued. On 11 November 1993, the partners entered into a settlement agreement which among others provides for the appointment of interim receivers and managers “to receive and manage the affairs of the Practice pending the disposal of the Civil Suits ...” and for the sale of the partnership. The bankruptcy notice was served on the respondent by way of substituted service on 31 January 1994 and on 29 July 1994, a creditor’s petition was filed. It was also served by way of substituted service on 11 May 1996. The creditor’s petition was heard by the senior assistant registrar of the High Court on 27 June 1995. The respondent did not appear nor contest the petition. The receiving order and adjudication order were thus made against the respondent.

[23] On 10 January 1996, the respondent applied to set aside and to annul the receiving and adjudication orders on the sole ground that arising from the dissolution of the partnership, monies would become due and payable to him upon the completion of the liquidation of the affairs of the partnership by the liquidator.

[24] The Senior Assistant Registrar of the High Court dismissed the respondent’s application to set aside the receiving and adjudication orders made against him. On the respondent’s appeal to the judge in chambers, the receiving and adjudication orders were set aside. The order of the learned judge was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appellant was granted leave by this court to appeal on the following issues:

(1) whether the words “where in the opinion of the court a debtor ought not to have been adjudged bankrupt” in s 105(1) of the BA 1967 only covered technical grounds; Affin Bank Berhad [2020] 2 MLRA v. Abu Bakar Ismail 107

(2) whether the debtor’s “ability to pay his debt” was a legal ground that fell within the said provision;

(3) whether the respondent’s non-appearance at the hearing of the creditor’s petition disqualified him from making the setting aside application; and

(4) whether the learned judge was correct on the facts in finding that the respondent was solvent and able to pay his debt.

[25] In delivering the judgment of this court, Abdul Hamid Mohamed FCJ (as he then was) said:

“(a) The phrase “where in the opinion of the court a debtor ought not to have been adjudged bankrupt ...” covers not only purely technical grounds like defective service of the bankruptcy notice or the creditor’s petition but also covers other legal grounds like an abuse of the process of the court.

(b) While the debtor’s “ability to pay his debt” may not be a “technical ground”, it is a “legal ground” which falls within the scope of the said phrase;

(c) In the circumstances of this case, the fact that the debtor did not appear at the hearing to contest the petition does not disqualify him from applying for the annulment of the adjudication order pursuant to s 105(1) of the Act.

(d) On the facts of this case, there is no reason for this court to interfere with the findings of fact of the learned judge that the respondent was solvent and was able to pay his debt or with the exercise of his discretion.”

[26] The learned FCJ further said:

“Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the material date to consider whether the respondent was able to pay the debt or not ought to be the date of the hearing of the creditor’s petition. ...

From the judgment of the learned judge, it appears quite clearly that the material date considered by him was the date of adjudication, which in this case is also the date of hearing of the creditor’s petition ...

In the circumstances, this argument ought not to have been forwarded because that was what the learned judge did: he considered the respondent's ability to pay his debt or solvency or insolvency as at the date of adjudication which was also the date of the hearing of the creditor’s petition.

That, in my view, is the correct date for consideration. First it should be noted that in the first limb of s 105(1) the words “ought not to have been adjudged bankrupt” are used. It denotes past tense. On the other hand, in the second limb, the words “the debts of the bankrupt are paid in full” which denotes the present tense, are used. Similarly, in the third limb, the present tense “are pending” is used. This clearly indicates that the material date for Affin Bank Berhad 108 v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2020] 2 MLRA

consideration in the case of the first limb, is a date in the past which, logically is the date of adjudication.”

[27] In respect of the material date to be considered in an application for annulment under the first limb, the Supreme Court in Sama Credit & Leasing Sdn Bhd v. Pegawai Pemegang Harta Malaysia [1995] 1 MLRA 183, held similar view. Chong Siew Fai SCJ said at p 185:

“One of the ways a bankruptcy may be disposed of is by annulment. Section 105(1) of the Act provides, inter alia, two situations under which an annulment may be granted:

(1) where in the opinion of the court the debtor ought not to have been adjudged bankrupt; or

(2) where the debts are paid in full.

The first situation is relevant in our case. And, in considering whether a receiving order ought to have been made, the appellate court would consider the actual state of affairs at the date of the order and would, generally speaking, not take into account matters that had occurred after that date. In Re Dunn (A Bankrupt), ex p Official Receiver v. Dunn [1949] Ch 640; [1949] 2 All ER 388, CA, Sir Raymond Evershed MR said at p 392:

I think counsel for the Official is right in saying that, in judging whether the order ought to have been made, the court is entitled to have regard to the actual date of affairs at the date of the order, which may appear from evidence subsequently filed, and certainly would not appear from the bare statement on the formal petition which alone was before the court when the order was made. I do not think, however, that one is entitled, in determining whether the order ought to have been made under the first limb of the subsection, to take into account facts which have occurred after the date of the order.”

[28] Similar principles were propounded by the English Court of Appeal in Paulin v. Paulin and Another [2010] 1 WLR 1057 where Wilson LJ stated thus at p 1074:

“Section 272(1) of the 1986 Act provides “A debtor’s petition may be presented to the court only on the grounds that the debtor is unable to pay his debts”. Section 282(1) of the same Act provides:

“The court may annul a bankruptcy order if it at any time appears to the court - (a) that, on the grounds existing at the time the order was made, the order ought not to have been made.”

A reading of the above two subsections together yields the uncontroversial conclusion that a court may annul a bankruptcy order if it concludes that, on the date of that order, the bankrupt was able to pay his debts. But, even if it so concludes, the word “may” confers upon the court a discretion whether to annul the order.” Affin Bank Berhad [2020] 2 MLRA v. Abu Bakar Ismail 109

[29] The position is also clearly stated by the authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th edn Reissue, Vol 3(2) at pp 326-327, paras 598 and 599:

“... The court may annul a bankruptcy order if it at anytime appears to the court: (1) that, on the grounds existing at the time the order was made, the order ought not to have been made; or...

... the grounds on which the order ought not to have been made must have been existing at the time the bankruptcy order was made.”

[30] Thus, the authorities clearly established that the relevant date to consider whether the debtor is able to pay his debts is the date of the making of the AORO.

[31] We therefore answered the first question in the negative.

[32] Coming back to Bungsar Hill v. Dr Amir Farid (supra), it was decided on its peculiar facts, in particular, when the bankruptcy order was made, the respondent/debtor was absent and there was already a settlement agreement which provides for the sale of the partnership. In the instant case, there was no evidence of the debtor's solvency at the date of the bankruptcy order. After the decision of the Court of Appeal on the second annulment application, the solicitors for the Bank wrote to the debtor’s solicitors enquiring among others, the steps taken by the debtor to recover the judgment sum awarded by the Singapore High Court order dated 13 April 2015. Although there was a reply, the debtor’s solicitors did not address the Bank’s solicitors query as to the recovery effort.

[33] Bungsar Hill v. Dr Amir Farid (supra) is certainly not an authority to support the debtor’s contention that the date for consideration whether a debtor ought not to have been adjudged a bankrupt, is after the bankruptcy order was made. The position taken by the debtor goes against the principle of law.

[34] Insofar as the DGI’s inability to assess damages pursuant to the Singapore judgment is concerned, with respect, we found that to be a non-issue. The DGI is not expected to pursue legal actions already instituted by the bankrupt prior to his bankruptcy. We noted that the DGI lack funds and resources and that most bankrupts would seek leave of the DGI to appoint solicitors to represent his estate in such litigation and more often than not, the DGI would grant leave or sanction. Indeed in the instant case, the debtor did engage lawyers in Singapore during his bankruptcy, presumably with the sanction of the DGI, to have the damages assessed, which led to the Singapore High Court assessment order dated 13 April 2015.

The Second Leave Question

[35] The second question is whether the solvency of a debtor under s 6(3) read with s 105(1) of the BA 1967 must necessarily relate to his ability to pay his Affin Bank Berhad 110 v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2020] 2 MLRA

debts as they became due, as at the time of the making of the AORO and not to his ability subsequent to the making of the bankruptcy order.

[36] The debtor alleged that he was solvent premised on the Singapore judgment dated 20 February 2013, which he claimed would be more than SGD$ 35 million. The debtor’s contention found favour with the Court of Appeal. This same Singapore judgment was relied upon by the debtor in his first annulment application. And the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the debtor’s first annulment application.

[37] There are thus two Court of Appeal decisions. The first decision dated 17 September 2014 was in respect of the first annulment application where despite the Singapore judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the debtor was not solvent as at the date of the AORO. The second decision dated 6 March 2017 was the decision appealed against in the instant case where the Court of Appeal formed the view that the debtor was solvent based on the Singapore judgment and that the debtor had the right to apply for an annulment under s 105(1) of the BA 1967.

[38] As set out above, this court in Bungsar Hill v. Dr Amir Farid (supra) held that the material date to determine the solvency and ability of the debtor to pay his debts was the date when the creditor’s petition was heard and the AORO made. What then is the definition or meaning of “debtor was able to pay his debt” or the test of solvency or the ability of an individual to pay his debts?

[39] In a corporate insolvency case of Lian Keow Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Anor v. Overseas Credit Finance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1987] 1 MLRA 672 at p 677, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“In short, the question is not whether the debtor’s assets exceed his liabilities as appeared in the books of the debtor, but whether there are moneys presently available to the debtor, or which he is able to realise in time, to meet the debts as they become due. It is not sufficient that the assets might be realisable at some future date after the debts have become due and payable.”

[40] In Sri Hartamas Development Sdn Bhd v. MBf Finance Bhd [1992] 1 MLRA 311, the respondent obtained judgment against the appellant. A demand under s 218(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 was then served on the appellant. As the appellant failed to pay the debt demanded, the respondent presented a winding-up petition against the appellant, on the ground that having failed to comply with the statutory demand, the appellant was presumed insolvent and unable to pay its debts. The High Court granted the winding-up order against the appellant. It was concluded that the appellant had not rebutted the statutory presumption.

[41] The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court where it was contended that the learned judge below had applied the wrong legal test and that the correct test should be whether the appellant would be capable, if necessary, of paying all its debts by a realisation of its assets, including any immoveable property. Affin Bank Berhad [2020] 2 MLRA v. Abu Bakar Ismail 111

[42] The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Gunn Chit Tuan SCJ said:

“In this case, the presumption of insolvency arises when the requirements of s 218(2)(a) of the Act have been satisfied and it is for the company to prove that it is able to pay its debts. In dealing with ‘commercial insolvency’, that is, of a company being unable to meet current demands upon it, we would respectfully follow the Privy Council in the Malayan Plant case and cite the following observations from Buckley on the Companies Act (13th Edn) at p 460:

In such a case it is useless to say that if its assets are realised there will be ample to pay 20 shillings in the pound: this is not the test. A company may be at the same time insolvent and wealthy. It may have wealth locked up in investments not presently realisable; but although this be so, yet if it have not assets available to meet its current liabilities it is commercially insolvent and may be wound up.

Applying the test in the above-quoted observations, we therefore held that the learned judge had exercised his discretion correctly in ordering the appellant to be wound up.”

[43] Similar principles on the test of commercial insolvency were enunciated in the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Gulf Business Construction (M) Sdn Bhd v. Israq Holding Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLRA 411 and Lafarge Concrete (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Gold Trend Builders Sdn Bhd [2012] 4 MLRA 112.

[44] As for individual insolvency, the High Court in Re Mat Shah Safuan; Ex Parte United Asian Bank Bhd [1990] 4 MLRH 485 held:

“The ability to settle any judgment debt in full under s 6(3) Bankruptcy Act 1967 must be established before the act of bankruptcy is committed, ie before the expiry of seven days after service of the bankruptcy notice on the debtor. In this case the debtor had already committed an act of bankruptcy and it is therefore too late at this stage of the proceedings for him to submit that he has sufficient assets with which he can pay the judgment debt in full.”

[45] The English Court of Appeal in Paulin v. Paulin and Another [2010] 1 WLR 1057 , in dealing with s 282(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which is substantially the same as our s 105(1) of the BA 1967, stated:

“41 It is well established that the inquiry into whether the relevant date the bankrupt was able to pay his debts is an inquiry not into whether his liabilities exceeded his assets (“balance sheet insolvency”) but into whether he could meet his liabilities when they were due (“commercial insolvency”). Often quoted in this context are the words of Mr David Oliver QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, Chancery Division, in In re Coney (A Bankrupt) [1998] BPIR 333, 335:

“Inability to pay one’s debts, at least in the context of insolvency, has historically long been construed as an inability to pay one’s debts at the time that they are due... The counterpart to this approach to solvency is that even if one’s liabilities exceed one’s assets on a balance sheet basis, it Affin Bank Berhad 112 v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2020] 2 MLRA

does not follow that a person is insolvent, albeit that it is all the more likely to result in a state of the individual’s relations with his bankers constituting the ultimate test of insolvency.”

Mr Oliver added, however at p 336:

“It would not normally be right... to annul a bankruptcy order unless at least it is shown that as at the date of the order the debtor was in fact able to pay his debts, or had some tangible and immediate prospect of being so able which has since been fulfilled or would have been so but for the order itself. It is with regard to a ‘tangible and immediate prospect’ that the assets and liabilities of a debtor and their nature will usually be of relevance.”

[46] The High Court of Australia alluded to the same principle in the case of Bank of Australasia v. Hall [1907] 4 CLR 1514 where it was held at p 1528:

“The question is not whether the debtor would be able, if time were given to him, to pay his debts out of his assets, but whether he is presently able to do so with moneys actually available.”

[47] Applying the principles set out in the above cited cases, the test for solvency of a debtor must be of the debtor’s ability to pay his debts as they become due, as at the time of the hearing of the creditor’s petition, when the AORO was made. The argument of learned counsel for the debtor that the time to consider whether a bankruptcy order ought to have been made, must be after such an order and not at the time of the order, is against the established principles of law. A bankrupt could always avail himself of the relief of annulment or discharge by making payment from monies recovered subsequent to the AORO, to the DGI (see s 105(1) and s 33 of the BA 1967 and the case of Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v. Bassanio Teo Yang [2009] 2 MLRH 668). We therefore answered Question 2 in the affirmative.

Conclusion

[48] We found that the Court of Appeal erred in failing to appreciate sufficiently that the solvency of the debtor under s 6(3) read together with s 105(1) of the BA 1967 must necessarily relate to his ability to pay his debts as they become due, at the time of hearing of the creditor’s petition. It is trite that the solvency does not relate to the debtor’s ability to pay his debts subsequent to the making of the AORO. Further, it relates to ‘commercial solvency’ and not ‘balance sheet solvency’.

[49] In the instant case, at the time the AORO was granted against the debtor, there was no evidence that he was solvent. No consideration ought to be given to the debtor’s ability to pay his debts based on subsequent change of circumstances. If at all, any change of circumstances post-AORO, ie any recovery of monies by the debtor would offer the debtor an opportunity to pay the debts in full which would enable him to obtain an annulment order, having made such full payment. But this was not done. The debtor made no payment to satisfy the judgment debt. Affin Bank Berhad [2020] 2 MLRA v. Abu Bakar Ismail 113

[50] Having found that AORO was rightly made, the Court of Appeal erred in taking into account the Singapore judgment obtained after the AORO, which was not material to determine the solvency of the debtor at the date the AORO was made. The decision of the Court of Appeal in allowing the second annulment application by the debtor was, with respect contrary to the established principles of law and warrants appellate intervention. The appeal was consequently allowed with costs, and the annulment orders of the courts below were set aside. eLaw Library represent overall total result, click on any of the tabs to lter result for selected library. eLaw Library Library murder criminal conviction Search Within eLaw Library ? Latest News Latest News shows (1545) (1495) (23) (24) (2) (1) the latest cases and eLaw Library Cases Legislation Articles Forms Practice Notes legislation. Dictionary A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third p ... Read more Browse and navigate other options 1545 results found. Latest Law

Cases eLaw Library PP V. AZILAH HADRI & ANOR 4 December 2015 ZULKIFLEE JUSOH lwn. ETIQA TAKAFUL eLaw Library Ari n Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJSS, Abdull Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop FCJJ Court of Appeal Put... BERHAD & SATU LAGI Cases pp v. azilah hadri & anor criminal law : penal code - section 302 read with s 34 - murder - common intention- appeal against acquittal Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kota Bharu Legislation [ B-05-154-06-2013 B-.. and discharge of respondents - circumstantial evidence - whether establishing culpability of respondents beyond [2016] 1 MELR 1 Forms Articles Cites: 22 Cases 13 Legislation Case History Cited by 18 PDF [2016] 1 MLRA 126 Practice Notes Legislation Regulatory Guidelines POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ACT 1948 REVI Municipal By-Laws NAGARAJAN MUNISAMY LWN. PENDAKWA RAYA ACT 113 Dictionary 26 Oktober 2015 Translator Aziah Ali, Ahmadi Asnawi, Abdul Rahman Sebli HHMR Mahkamah Rayuan Put... Hansard membunuh orang (murder) jika perbuatan tersebut terjumlah dalam salah satu daripada kerangka-kerangka (limb) seperti di MyBriefcase "envisaged" dalam s 300 (a) atau (b) atau (c) atau (d) atau mana-mana kombinasi daripadanya. seksyen 302 pula adalah hukuman [ B-05-3-2011] bagi kesalahan me... [2016] 1 MLRA 245 Cites: 5 Cases 5 Legislation PDF

HOOI CHUK KWONG V. LIM SAW CHOO (F) Advanced search 8 September 2015 or Citation search Thomson CJ, Hill J, Smith J Court Of Appeal Put...... some degree to conviction for murder and to hanging. it is possible to think of a great variety of ...... f the ordinary rule that in a criminal prosecution the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove every...... ne or forfeiture except on conviction for an oence. in [ S-05-149-06-2014] other words, it can be said at this sta... [2016] 1 MLRA 386 Cites: 6 Cases 4 Legislation Case History Cited by 1 4 PDF Cases Search Within eLaw Library ? Court of Appeal Putrajaya : [2013] 5 MLRA 212 Case Citation Advanced Search Citation Search High Court Malaya Shah Alam : [202] 1 MLRH 546 4 Search Within Full Judgment Case Title

Without the word(s) Without the word(s)

Legislation Referred: Legislation Referred Allow users to see case’s history

Judge: Judge

Case Number: Case Number

Counsel: Counsel

Court: All Courts

Judgment Year(s): 1894 to 2016

Cases Judicially Considered

Subject Index Nothing Selected

Search Cancel eLaw Library Library Search Within eLaw Library ? Latest News Search within case judgment by entering Cases any keyword or phrase. SUBRAMANIAM GOVINDARAJOO v. PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENCEGAH JENAYAH & ORS

[2016] 3 MLRH 145 Click to gain access to the provided document 9 34 Judgment Cites: Cases Legislation Dictionary Share PDF Search within case tools

High Court Malaya, Ipoh Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JC [Judicial Review No: 25-8-03-2015] 28 March 2016 Download Download

Civil Procedure : Judicial review - Application for - Restrictive order - Non-compliance of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Validity of remand order - Whether remand order complied with - Whether appointment of Inquiry Of�icer authorised - Whether establishment of Prevention of Crime Board proper - Whether copy of decision failed to be served - Whether discrepancy in statement in writing by inspector and �inding of Inquiry Of�icer rendered detention a nullity PDF Save Switch view beteewn case In this application for judicial review, the applicant prayed for the following orders: (a) an order of certiorari and/or declaration to quash the decision of the 1st respondent; Judgement/Headnote and (b) an order of certiorari and/or declaration to quash the decision of the respondents for an order to place the applicant under restricted residence with police supervision pursuant to s 15(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ("POCA"). The applicant challenged the validity of the said police supervision order and contended that there A was non-compliance by the respective respondents concerning not only his arrest and remand but also the subsequent steps in the process which among others led to the making of the police supervision order which the applicant alleged was null and void. The grounds relied on to challenge included: (i) the invalidity of the remand order Font Print issued against the applicant; (ii) the non-compliance of the remand order which stated that he was remanded at Balai Polis Bercham; (iii) the unauthorised appointment of s 7B of POCA in respect of its establishment; (v) the non-compliance of s 10(4) of POCA the Inquiry Of�icer; (iv) the failure of the Prevention of Crime Board ("the Board") to comply with based on the failure of the Board to serve a copy of its decision; and (vi) the discrepancy in the statement in writing by the Inspector and the �inding of the HeldInquiry (dismissing Of�icer. the application with costs):

any appeal made regarding the two remand orders given by the Magistrate and the applicant could not protest detention pursuant to the said remand orders. Furthermore all(1) the The necessary remand order requirements was not an in issuemaking to bethe tried application because for the remand leave granted had been was complied only con�ined with and to the no policeirregularity supervision in terms order of procedure by the Board. which There could was taint no complaintthe legality �iled of the or remand order. (paras 20, 21 & 25)

(2) The applicant averred that the log book would show that he was not remanded at Balai Polis Bercham (as per the remand order). The production of the log book was irrelevant. The applicant had never applied for discovery of documents and for the applicant to raise the issue was unfair to the respondents. The evidence remained as per

the application, statement, af�idavit in support, af�idavits in opposition, af�idavit in reply and the exhibits produced. Based on the evidence available, the applicant was Affin Bank Berhad v. Abu Bakar Ismail

eLaw Library represent overall total result, click on any of the tabs to lter result for selected library. eLaw Library Library murder criminal conviction Search Within eLaw Library ? Latest News Latest News shows (1545) (1495) (23) (24) (2) (1) the latest cases and eLaw Library Cases Legislation Articles Forms Practice Notes legislation. Dictionary A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third p ... Read more Browse and navigate other options 1545 results found. Latest Law

Search Within Full Judgment Case Title

Without the word(s) Without the word(s)

Legislation Referred: Legislation Referred Allow users to see case’s history

Judge: Judge

Case Number: Case Number

Counsel: Counsel

Court: All Courts

Judgment Year(s): 1894 to 2016

Cases Judicially Considered

Subject Index Nothing Selected

[2016] 3 MLRH 145 Click to gain access to the provided document 9 34 Judgment Cites: Cases Legislation Dictionary Share PDF Search within case tools

High Court Malaya, Ipoh Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JC [Judicial Review No: 25-8-03-2015] 28 March 2016 Download Download

Search Engine eLawJudgments Library Library LibrarySearch Within eLaw Library ? Latest News Cases

SUBRAMANIAM GOVINDARAJOO v. PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENCEGAH JENAYAH & ORS eLaweLaw Library Library Search Within eLaw Library ? Latest News [2016] 3 MLRH 145

(1545) (1495) (23) (24) (2) (1) 9 34 eLaw Library Cases Legislation Articles Forms Practice Notes Judgment Cites: Cases Legislation Dictionary Share PDF SUBRAMANIAM GOVINDARAJOO v. PENGERUSI, LEMBAGASearch PENCEGAH within JENAYAH &case ORS& 25)

Dictionary High Court Malaya, Ipoh A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third p ... Read more Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JC [Judicial Review No: 25-8-03-2015] 1545 results found. 28 March 2016 Download Download

PATHMANABHAN NALLIANNEN V. PP & OTHER APPEALS Civil Procedure : Judicial review - Application for - Restrictive order - Non-compliance of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Validity of remand order Subramaniam - Whether Govindarajoo remand order 4 December 2015 complied with - Whether appointment of Inquiry Of�icer authorised - Whether establishment of Prevention of Crime Board proper[2016] 3 -MLRH Whether copyV. Pengerusi, of decision Lembaga failed Pencegah to Jenayahbe served & Ors 145 Aziah Ali, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Zakaria Sam JJCA - Whether discrepancy in statement in writing by inspector and �inding of Inquiry Of�icer rendered detention a nullity Court of Appeal Put... PDF Save criminal law : murder - circumstantial evidence - appellants found guilty of murder - appeal against conviction and sentence - whether exhibits In this application for judicial review, the applicant prayed for the following orders: (a) an order of certiorari and/or declaration to quash the decision of the 1st respondent; [ B-05-154-06-2013 B-.. SUBRAMANIAM GOVINDARAJOO tendered could be properly admitted under law - whether trial judge took a maximum evaluation of witness information lead... and (b) an order of certiorari and/or declaration to quash the decision of the respondents for an order to place the applicant under restricted residencev. with police supervision pursuant to The applicant challenged the validity of the said police supervision order and contended that there [2016] 1 MLRA 126 s 15(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ("POCA"). PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENCEGAH JENAYAH & ORS A Cites: 27 Cases 24 Legislation Case History PDF was non-compliance by the respective respondents concerning not only his arrest and remand but also the subsequent steps in the process which among others led to the making of the police supervision order which the applicant alleged was null and void. The grounds relied on to challengeHigh included: Court Malaya, (i) the Ipoh invalidity of the remand order Font Print Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JC issued against the applicant; (ii) the non-compliance of the remand order which stated that he was remanded at Balai Polis[Judicial Bercham; Review (iii) No: the 25-8-03-2015] unauthorised appointment of s 7B of POCA in respect28 of March its establishment; 2016 (v) the non-compliance of s NAGARAJAN MUNISAMY LWN. PENDAKWA RAYA 26 Oktober 2015 10(4) of POCA the Inquiry Of�icer; (iv) the failure of the Prevention of Crime Board ("the Board") to comply with Civil Procedure : Judicial review - Application for - Restrictive order - Aziah Ali, Ahmadi Asnawi, Abdul Rahman Sebli HHMR Non-compliance of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Validity of remand Mahkamah Rayuan Put... based on the failure of the Board to serve a copy of its decision; and (vi) the discrepancy in the statement orderin writing - Whether by theremand Inspector order complied and the with �inding - Whether of the appointment of membunuh orang (murder) jika perbuatan tersebut terjumlah dalam salah satu daripada kerangka-kerangka (limb) seperti di "envisaged" dalam s 300 (a) HeldInquiry (dismissing Of�icer. the application with costs): Inquiry Of�icer authorised - Whether establishment of Prevention of [ B-05-3-2011] Crime Board proper - Whether copy of decision failed to be served - atau (b) atau (c) atau (d) atau mana-mana kombinasi daripadanya. seksyen 302 pula adalah hukuman bagi kesalahan me... Whether discrepancy in statement in writing by inspector and �inding of Inquiry Of�icer rendered detention a nullity [2016] 1 MLRA 245 Cites: 5 Cases 5 Legislation PDF any appeal made regarding the two remand orders given by the Magistrate and the applicant could not protest detention pursuant to the said remand orders. Furthermore In this application for judicial review, the applicant prayed for the all(1) the The necessary remand order requirements was not an in issuemaking to bethe tried application because for the remand leave granted had been was complied only con�ined with and to the no policeirregularity supervision in terms orderfollowing of procedure by the orders: Board. which (a) There an could order was taint noof complaintcertiorarithe legality and/or �iled of the or declaration to remand order. (paras 20, 21 & 25) quash the decision of the 1st respondent; and (b) an order of certiorari and/or declaration to quash the decision of the respondents JOY FELIX V. PP for an order to place the applicant under restricted residence with 8 September 2015 (2) The applicant averred that the log book would show that he was not remanded at Balai Polis Bercham (as per the remandpolice supervisionorder). The pursuant production to s 15(1) of the of Preventionlog book was of Crime Act 1959 irrelevant. The applicant had never applied for discovery of documents and for the applicant to raise the issue was unfair to("POCA"). the respondents. The applicant The challenged evidence remainedthe validity as of per the said police Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Vernon Ong, Prasad Sandosham Abraham JJCA Court Of Appeal Put... supervision order and contended that there was non-compliance by Easier eLaw has more than 80,000 judgmentsthe respective respondents concerningfrom not only his arrestFederal/ and remand criminal law : murder - whether intention to kill deceased present - appellant convicted and sentenced for murder - appeal against conviction and but also the subsequent steps in the process which among others led sentence - whether there was any evidence to excuse appellant for incurring risk of causing death to deceased - whether... [ S-05-149-06-2014] the application, statement, af�idavit in support, af�idavits in opposition, af�idavit in reply and the exhibits produced. Basedto on the the making evidence of the available, police supervision the applicant order was which the applicant alleged was null and void. The grounds relied on to challenge included: (i) the invalidity of the remand order issued against the Cites: 6 Cases 4 Legislation Case History PDF [2016] 1 MLRA 386 Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Industrial applicant; (ii) the non-compliance of the remand order which stated Smarter that he was remanded at Balai Polis Bercham; (iii) the unauthorised s 7B of POCA in respect of Court and Syariah Court, dating backitsappointment toestablishment; the of the (v) Inquiry the non-compliance1900s. Of�icer; (iv) the of failure s 10(4) of ofthe POCA Prevention based on of theCrime failure Board of ("thethe Board Board") to toserve comply a copy with of its decision; and (vi) the Faster Results. discrepancy in the statement in writing by the Inspector and the �indingHeld (dismissing of the Inquiry the application Of�icer. with costs): (1) The remand order was not an issue to be tried because the leave

grantedtwo remand was orders only con�ined given by to the the Magistrate police supervision and the applicant order by could the Board.not protest There wasdetention no complaint pursuant �iled orto any the appeal said made remand regarding orders. the Furthermore all the necessary requirements in making the application for remand had been complied with and no irregularity in terms of procedure which could taint the legality of the remand order. Find Overruled Cases Multi-Journal Case Citator (paras 20, 21 & 25) eLaw Library Library Search Within eLaw Library ? Latest News

Results Cases Search Within eLaw Cases / Citation Ex MLRA 2000 1 1 ?

List View Precedent Map Majlis Peguam V. Dato Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah Refers To Advanced Search Citation Search

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976 ACT 166

ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Malaysia Citation MLRH 103E.. Appeal from the nal order or decision of the Disciplinary Board. In force from: West Malaysia - 1 June 1977 [P.U.(B) 327/77] 1976

Legal Profession (Practice An Year: 2012

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976 ACT 166 Legal Profession Act 1976 Legal Profession (Publicity) Volume 2 ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Malaysia 93.. Disciplinary Board. Legal Profession Act 1976 Legal Profession (Publicity) Page Citation Page In force from: West Malaysia - 1 June 1977 [P.U.(B) 327/77] 1976

LEGAL PROFESSION (PUBLICITY) RULES 2001 PU(A) 345/2001 Legal Profession Act 1976 Majlis Peguam V. Dato Sri Dr M Legal Profession (Publicity) Search Cancel ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Malaysia 15.. Interviews with press radio and television 15 NOVEMBER 2001 2001 Legal Profession (Publicity)

LEGAL PROFESSION (PRACTICE AND ETIQUETTE) RULES 1978 PU(A) 369/1978 Ethics & Professional Responsibility Malaysia 48.. Advocate and solicitor not to publish photograph. In force from 29 December 1978 1978 The relationships between referred cases can be viewed via You can extract judgments based on the citations of the precedent map diagram or a list e.g. Followed, referred, various local legal journals.* distinguished or overruled.

Legislation LibraryCRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (REVISED 1999) Dictionary/Translator ACT 593

Section Preamble Amendments Timeline Dictionary Main Act Search within case Legal Dictionary Satutory Interpretations Translator

Related Case Results 3. Trial of o ences under Penal Code and other laws. Case Referred A Search Dictionary criminal breach of trust AISYAH MOHD ROSE & ANOR v. PP 4. Saving of powers of High Court. criminal law : criminal breach of trust - misappropriation of cheques - appellants convicted and Case Referred A A Crime sentenced for criminal breach of trust and money laundering - appeal against convictions and Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property of with any domination over sentences - whether charges defective - whether any evidence of entrustment... B Criminal Criminal bankruptcy order property dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or 13 November 2015 [2016] 1 MLRA 203 Nothing in this code shall be construed as derogating from the powers or jurisdiction of the High Court. C Criminal breach of trust dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any directly of law Criminal conspiracy prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, JCT LIMITED v. MUNIANDY NADASAN & D Criminal contempt ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL express or implied, which he has made, touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfuly ANNOTATION Criminal conversation of money or criminal breach of trust, it is settled law that the burden of proof is the criminal standard E Criminal damage su ers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust. of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not on the balance of probabilities. it is now well established F Criminal intimidation that an allegation of criminal fraud in civil or crimi... Refer to Public Prosecutor v. Saat Hassan & Ors [1984] 1 MLRH 608: Criminal misconduct. 20 November 2015 [2016] 2 MLRA 562 G Criminal negligence Legal Dictionary Satutory Interpretations Translator English - Malay H Criminal procedure code "Section 4 of the code states that `nothing in this code shall be construed as derogating from the powers or jurisdiction of the High Court.' In my view this section (fms cap 6) I Criminal trespass expressly preserved the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make any order necessary to give e ect to other provisions under the code or to prevent abuse of Cross - examination the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the needs of justice." J Cross-appeals Search Dictionary K Cross-examination Refer also to Husdi v. Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 MLRA 423 and the discussion thereof. Cross-holdings L Crown A Reasonably necessary Crown privilege B Reassignment (duty) Refer also to PP v. Ini Abong & Ors [2008] 3 MLRH 260: M Crown proceedings rebate receiving order Crown side C Rebut N Rebuttable presumption Crown solicitor perintah penerimaan "[13] In reliance of the above, I can safely say that a judge of His Majesty is constitutionally bound to arrest a wrong at limine and that power and jurisdiction cannot O Culpable homicide D Rebuttal be ordinarily fettered by the doctrine of Judicial Precedent. (See Re: Hj Khalid Abdullah; Ex-Parte Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd [2007] 3 MLRH 313; [2008] 2 CLJ 326). Current assets E Receiving order P Curtilage Receiving state Recidivist Q Custode admittendo; F [14] In crux, I will say that there is no wisdom to advocate that the court has no inherent powers to arrest a wrong. On the facts of the case, I ought to have exercised custode removendo Reciprocal R Custodes pacis G Reciprocal enforcement of my discretion and allowed the defence application at the earliest opportunity. However, I took the safer approach to deal with the same at the close of the judgment prosecution's case, because of the failure of the prosecution to address me directly on the issue whether a charge for kidnapping can be sustained without the S Youvictim givingcan evidence." cross-reference & print updated Federal and eLaw has tools such as a law dictionary and a State Legislation including municipal by-laws and view English - Malay translator to assist your research. amendments in a timeline format. Main legislation are also annotated with explanations, cross-references, and cases.

*Clarification: Please note that eLaw’s multi-journal case citator will retrieve the corresponding judgment for you, in the version and format of The Legal Review’s publications, with an affixed MLR* citation. No other publisher’s version of the judgment will be retrieved & exhibited. The printed judgment in pdf from The Legal Review may then be submitted in Court, should you so require.

Please note that The Legal Review Sdn Bhd (is the content provider) and has no other business association with any other publisher.

www.elaw.my Affin Bank Berhad v. Abu Bakar Ismail