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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Since section 304(1) originates from section 332 <strong>of</strong> the UK Companies Act 1948,<br />

reference will be made to the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the section. <strong>The</strong> Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal in re<br />

Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd (in liq), Ward v Aitken and others 233 mentioned<br />

that the effect <strong>of</strong> recoveries in fraudulent trading <strong>of</strong> the 1948 Act was to swell the<br />

assets <strong>of</strong> the company to be distributed in accordance with the statutory scheme. It is<br />

clear, therefore, that the contributions should be for the benefit <strong>of</strong> the general body <strong>of</strong><br />

creditors. Lindsay J in Re Esal (Commodities) Ltd 234 held that sums recovered under<br />

section 332 <strong>of</strong> the 1948 Act in a way corresponded to recoveries <strong>of</strong> a liquidator from<br />

fraudulent preference as in the Yagerphone case. 235<br />

It is acknowledged that English cases are not binding but merely persuasive, and<br />

Malaysian Courts are not bound to adopt their decisions. However, it is important for<br />

the court to grant orders which reflect the aim and purpose <strong>of</strong> enacting the provision.<br />

It is submitted that since fraudulent trading involves the court lifting the corporate<br />

veil and holding those responsible for the act liable, there is a tendency <strong>of</strong> the court<br />

to grant orders for the benefit <strong>of</strong> the creditor who brings the action.<br />

In doing so, courts have failed to take into account that the aim <strong>of</strong> the provision is to<br />

make directors accountable for their acts and to protect public money from<br />

unscrupulous directors. <strong>The</strong> only difference is that fraudulent trading in section<br />

304(1) does not apply to a liquidation situation only, but could be invoked in any<br />

proceeding before the court. This, however, does not justify the court‘s awarding a<br />

remedy to a specific creditor because the aim is to make directors responsible for<br />

their acts and not as an avenue for creditors to bring action to satisfy judgment sums.<br />

<strong>The</strong>refore, creditors who wish to enforce judgments or claim for any unpaid goods<br />

should bring a civil action rather than one under section 304(1).<br />

233 [1997] 1 BCLC 689 at 701.<br />

234 [1993] BCLC 872 at 883.<br />

235 [1935] Ch 392.<br />

363

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!