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.

prescribed time. 65 <strong>The</strong> decision in Bank <strong>of</strong> Australasia v Hall 66 illustrated that the<br />

debtor‟s ability to pay was not limited to its cash but include any moneys from sale<br />

or pledge <strong>of</strong> assets. 67 <strong>The</strong> courts, however, acknowledge not all assets can be<br />

included and realized, for it may result in the closure <strong>of</strong> business or breach <strong>of</strong><br />

contract. 68 Hence, whether assets should be accounted for or not depends upon the<br />

nature <strong>of</strong> business and the nature <strong>of</strong> the assets. 69 In Sri Jeluda Bhd v Pentalink Sdn<br />

Bhd, 70 the Malaysian Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal decided that the company failed in rebutting<br />

the presumption when the money it asserted to be in its account in fact belonged to a<br />

third party. 71 As such, the company would not be able to pay its debts when they<br />

were due.<br />

In Syarikat Mohd Noor Yus<strong>of</strong> Sdn Bhd v Polibina Engineering Enterprise Sdn Bhd, 72<br />

the respondent sent a notice under section 218(2)(a) claiming a sum <strong>of</strong> RM896,<br />

378.18. <strong>The</strong> respondent, however, did not obtain any judgment for such sums and the<br />

appellant disputed the debts. <strong>The</strong> court decided that the presumption <strong>of</strong> being unable<br />

to pay its debts did not arise in this case since the appellant was clearly a solvent<br />

company. 73<br />

65 Ibid.<br />

66 Bank <strong>of</strong> Australasia v Hall (1907) 4 C.L.R 1514 at 1528.<br />

67 See also the decision in Sandell v Porter (1966) 115 CLR 666; New Zealand unreported case Re:<br />

Northbridge Properties Ltd High Court Auckland, M46-49/75 and M77/75, 13 December 1977, as<br />

noted in “Insolvency and Companies” [1983] NZLJ 44; for Malaysia, see decision in Lian Keow<br />

Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Anor v Overseas Credit Finance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 2 MLJ 449<br />

at 454; PT Anekapangan Dwitama v Far East Food Industries Sdn Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 21 at 29; Sri<br />

Hartamas Development Sdn Bhd v MBF Finance Bhd [1992] 1 MLJ 313 at 320.<br />

68 Re Timbatec Pty Ltd (1974) 24 FLR 30 at 36-37; Bank <strong>of</strong> Australasia v Hall above n 55.<br />

69 Keay above n62 at 324.<br />

70 [2008] 3 MLJ 692.<br />

71 [2008] 3 MLJ 692 at 711.<br />

72 [2006] 1 MLJ 446.<br />

73 [2006] 1 MLJ 446 at 455.<br />

184

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!