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.

REPLIES TO EXAMINERS<br />

APPENDIX 1<br />

Page 185- clear guidelines should be developed by the court to determine how<br />

solvency tests should be applied<br />

<strong>The</strong> Malaysian Companies Act 1965 provides that the court may order the winding up <strong>of</strong><br />

the company under section 218(1)(e) if it is unable to pay its debts. <strong>The</strong> same Act defines<br />

inability to pay debts in three ways- 1<br />

a) A creditor by assignment or otherwise to whom the company is indebted in a sum<br />

exceeding RM500 then due has served on the company by leaving at the<br />

registered <strong>of</strong>fice a demand under his hand or under the hand <strong>of</strong> his agent thereunto<br />

lawfully authorized requiring the company to pay the sum so due, and the<br />

company has for three weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum or to secure or<br />

compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the creditor;<br />

b) Execution or other proceed issue on a judgment, decree or order <strong>of</strong> any court in<br />

favour <strong>of</strong> a creditor <strong>of</strong> the company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part; or<br />

c) It is proved to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Court that the company is unable to pay its<br />

debts; and in determining whether a company is unable to pay its debts the Court<br />

shall take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities <strong>of</strong> the company.<br />

<strong>The</strong> paragraphs above are to be read disjunctively and the company may be wound up by<br />

the court on any one <strong>of</strong> them. 2 Case law seems to suggest that the test applicable to<br />

situation (a) is based on commercial insolvency 3 while the proper test for situation (c) is<br />

the overall assets and liabilities test. 4 Nevertheless the court in Syarikat Mohd Noor<br />

Yus<strong>of</strong> Sdn Bhd v Polibina Engineering Enterprise Sdn Bhd (2008) 3 MLJ 692 (referred to<br />

in Chapter 8 – page 183 and page 185) held that the company was held to be solvent<br />

1 See section 218(2) <strong>of</strong> the Malaysian Companies Act 1965.<br />

2 See Teck Yeow Brothers Hand-Bag Trading Co v Maharani Supermarket Sdn Bhd [1989] 1 MLJ 101.<br />

3 See Hotel Royal Sdn Bhd v Tina Travel & Agencies Sdn Bhd [1990] 1MLJ 21.<br />

4 See Datuk Mohd Sari Datuk Nuar v Idris Hydraulic (M) Bhd [1996] 3 CLJ 877.<br />

436

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!