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.

cash flow test has been more widely used by the court than the balance sheet test.<br />

<strong>The</strong> balance sheet test has only been used if the creditors have filed the winding up<br />

petition without serving a statutory notice <strong>of</strong> demand as stated in section 218(2)(a). 52<br />

In Sri Hartamas Development Sdn Bhd v MBF Finance Bhd, 53 the court stated that<br />

“the presumption <strong>of</strong> insolvency arises when the requirements <strong>of</strong> section 218(2)(a) <strong>of</strong><br />

the Act have been satisfied and it is for the company to prove that it is able to pay its<br />

debts.” In deciding whether the company was commercially insolvent, the Supreme<br />

Court applied the test used by the Privy Council in Malayan Plant (Pte) Ltd v<br />

Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd 54 and held that it did not matter if the company had<br />

assets available, if they could not be realized on time to meet its current liabilities ,<br />

the company was insolvent. 55<br />

<strong>The</strong> court in Lian Keow Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Anor v Overseas Credit Finance<br />

(M) Sdn Bhd & Ors, 56 a preference case under sections 223 and 293, held “the<br />

question is not whether the debtor‟s assets exceed his liabilities as appeared in the<br />

books <strong>of</strong> the debtor, but whether there are moneys presently available to the debtor,<br />

or which he is able to realize in time, to meet the debts as they become due. It is not<br />

sufficient that the assets might be realizable at some future date after the debts have<br />

become due and payable.” 57 <strong>The</strong> court‟s decisions seem to illustrate that a company<br />

is insolvent if it fails to pay within the stipulated time. It should be noted that in most<br />

52 See Datuk Mohd Sari bin Datuk Hj Nuar v Idris Hydraulic (M) Sdn Bhd [1997] 5 MLJ 377.<br />

53 [1992] 1 MLJ 313 at 320.<br />

54 [1980] 2 MLJ 53.<br />

55 [1992] 1 MLJ 313 at 320; see also Re Hong Huat Realty [1987] 2 MLJ 502; Hotel Royal Ltd Bhd v<br />

Tina Travel & Agencies Sdn Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 21; Pioneer Concrete (M) Sdn Bhd v Celini Corp<br />

Sdn Bhd [1998] 3 MLJ 810; HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd v CS Metal Industries (M) Sdn Bhd [2006] 2<br />

MLJ 578; Yew Chye Heng & Anor v Venice Hill Living Resort Sdn Bhd [2007] 7 MLJ 566.<br />

56 [1988] 2 MLJ 449.<br />

57 [1988] 2 MLJ 449 at 454; see also PT Anekapangan Dwitama v Far East Food Industries Sdn Bhd<br />

[1995] 1 MLJ 21.<br />

182

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!