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.

Mason v Lewis 230 also followed the same approach that the duty is owed to the<br />

general body <strong>of</strong> creditors rather than to any particular creditor. <strong>The</strong> decision in the<br />

case denotes that the term ‗creditors‘ also includes secured creditors which is<br />

illustrated when the court said ―<strong>The</strong>re is nothing wrong, in principle, in liquidators<br />

bringing a claim such as this, even though only a secured creditor or secured creditor<br />

will benefit from it.‖ <strong>The</strong> legislation itself does not distinguish between secured and<br />

unsecured creditors.‖ 231<br />

This is because section 301 is regarded as misfeasance proceedings in which secured<br />

creditors are entitled to the fruits <strong>of</strong> the actions. Courts in the UK also reached the<br />

same conclusions when reliance is made on misfeasance cases but later shifted to<br />

preference cases as comparison.<br />

Section 304(1) <strong>of</strong> the Malaysian Companies Act 1965 provides the power to the<br />

court to ―declare that any person who is knowingly a party to the carrying on <strong>of</strong> the<br />

business in that manner shall be personally responsible, without any limitation <strong>of</strong><br />

liability, for all <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the debts or any liabilities <strong>of</strong> the company as the Court<br />

directs.‖ <strong>The</strong> section, however, does not indicate who shall benefit from the order.<br />

Case law in Malaysia has stated that the proceeds <strong>of</strong> fraudulent trading are available<br />

to a specific creditor who brings the action and will not be for the benefit <strong>of</strong> all<br />

creditors; in line with the decision <strong>of</strong> Lord Denning M.R in Re Cyona Distributors<br />

Ltd. 232 <strong>The</strong>re is no mention <strong>of</strong> secured creditors in these cases, but it is likely that<br />

they will be able to recover from the action since courts tend to give judgment to the<br />

creditor who brings an action. Hence, if a secured creditor brings an action under the<br />

section, there is no reason why the court will make an order <strong>of</strong> contribution for his or<br />

her benefit.<br />

230 [2006] 3 NZLR 225, 234. <strong>The</strong> court made reference to O‘Regan J‘s essential pillars <strong>of</strong> section 135<br />

in Fatupaito v Bates [2001] 3 NZLR 386.<br />

231 Mason v Lewis [2006] 3 NZLR 225 at 234.<br />

232 [1967] Ch 887.<br />

362

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!