14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>The</strong> variation in the outcome depending on methods <strong>of</strong> assessment has raised the<br />

question <strong>of</strong> whether there should be one standard practice that must be adopted by<br />

the company. <strong>The</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> one standard practice may provide certainty in the<br />

outcome but it may be too rigid and may not be able to respond immediately to any<br />

contingencies. On the other hand, to leave to directors to decide may be flexible but<br />

will lead to uncertainty as well as being open to manipulation by directors.<br />

In the absence <strong>of</strong> legal definition as to what amounts to assets and liabilities, reliance<br />

has been placed on directors‟ discretion and accounting practice. Directors are free to<br />

choose any accounting format they feel best suited for the company and the court<br />

will not intervene in their decisions unless there are elements <strong>of</strong> mala fides.<br />

In Malaysia, the balance sheet test is contained in section 218(2)(c) <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Companies Act 1965, but unlike the UK Insolvency Act 1986 and New Zealand<br />

Companies Act 1993, the provision did not describe the test. In Datuk Mohd Sari bin<br />

Datuk Hj Nuar v Idris Hydraulic (M) Bhd 47 the petitioner relied on the respondent‟s<br />

balance sheet which showed current liabilities exceeded the current assets, to file a<br />

winding up petition.<br />

<strong>The</strong> court asserted that under section 218(2), there are three ways in which the<br />

petitioner could prove that the respondent is unable to pay its debts and in the<br />

instance section 218(2)(c) is applicable since no statutory notice <strong>of</strong> demand was<br />

served. <strong>The</strong> court referred to the UK Companies Act 1948 and concluded that:<br />

Section 218(2)(c) is very clear. To ascertain if a company is unable to pay its<br />

debt the court shall take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities<br />

<strong>of</strong> the company. In order to ascertain its liabilities, it is proper that its assets<br />

are also ascertained because only upon ensuring that there is insufficient<br />

assets to meet the debts can there be ascertained liabilities. <strong>The</strong>refore the<br />

47 [1997] 5 MLJ 377.<br />

180

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!