High Court Decision on Interaction between Judicial Management and Insolvency

The Higher Court in Exxobrite Sdn Bhd v Worth Additionally Industries Sdn Bhd (grounds of judgment dated 29 July 2022) dealt with the moratorium influence of a judicial management order and the insolvency repercussions arising from the judicial administration system.

Summary of the Determination and Significance
Grounds by: Nadzarin bin Wok Nordin J

The business, Benefit Plus, was positioned into judicial management. As element of the judicial management method, the judicial supervisor experienced carried out the evidence of personal debt physical exercise and drew up the judicial manager’s Assertion of Proposal. The creditor, Exxobrite, experienced its debt admitted in the judicial administration system.

When the judicial management buy was continue to subsisting, Exxobrite issued a winding up statutory desire for the sum of approximately RM73,000.00.

Subsequently, Exxobrite submitted a winding up petition dependent on equally area 466(1)(a) and 466(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). Section 466(1)(a) is the place there is the presumption of the lack of ability to pay credit card debt when the statutory demand from customers is not complied with. Area 466(1)(c) is exactly where the incapacity to pay out debt is following using into account the contingent and future liabilities of the enterprise.

First, the Court docket held that the statutory need was faulty as the issuance of the demand from customers was a graduation of a legal method through the period of the judicial administration order. This was contrary to segment 411(4)(c) of the CA 2016 in which “no … other lawful approach shall be commenced …against the company … except with the consent of the judicial manager or with the go away of the Court …

2nd, the Court even now granted the winding up get based mostly on the different ground of area 466(1)(c) of the CA 2016. There was an admitted credit card debt through the judicial manager’s admission of the proof of credit card debt. The judicial manager’s Statement of Proposal also showed that Value Plus’ current liabilities much exceeded its current property. This was proof of Value Plus’ industrial insolvency. Therefore, getting into account the contingent and possible liabilities of the company, the Court discovered that Value Furthermore was not able to satisfy its present debts.

History Specifics

On 16 February 2021, a judicial administration get (JM Purchase) was granted over Worth Plus. The JM Buy lasted for 6 months and was then extended right up until 15 February 2022.

Throughout the JM Purchase, the judicial manager carried out the proof of credit card debt workout. The judicial supervisor admitted the debt of about RM73,000 owing to Exxobrite by means of a Notice of Admission dated 24 November 2021.

On 25 January 2022, Exxobrite issued a statutory need in opposition to Value In addition for the payment of the personal debt inside 21 days.

On 15 February 2022, the JM Buy lapsed.

On 15 June 2022, Exxobrite filed its winding up petition against Value Furthermore based on, among the others, sections 466(1)(a) and 466(1)(c) of the CA 2016.

Benefit Plus submitted an application to, among the other individuals, strike out the winding up petition. This is on the ground that the statutory demand was invalid as it was in breach of the moratorium underneath the JM Get.

The Court proceeded to listen to the winding up petition together with the striking out software.


To start with, the Courtroom thought of regardless of whether the statutory need was faulty and invalid.

Exxobrite argued that the statutory desire was not the graduation of a lawful course of action and therefore did not contravene section 411 of the CA 2016. The argument was that a legal procedure intended a summons, writ, warrant, mandate or other system issued from a court.

The Court docket referred to the Substantial Court of Justice in Northern Island circumstance of Fulton and a different v AIB Group (United kingdom) plc [2014] Nich 8 about administration, staying an equivalent system like judicial management. The situation held that a statutory demand from customers was a authorized course of action for the purposes of a moratorium in administration.

The Court held that the time period “legal process” for a moratorium in judicial administration must contain a statutory desire for winding up. It is the statutory demand issued less than segment 466(1)(a) of the CA 2016 which triggers the appropriate to file or commence a winding up petition premised on segment 465(1)(e) read through with segment 466(1)(a) of the CA 2016.

Additional, the moratorium in judicial administration was drafted vast ample to deal with the conditions “other proceedings”, “execution” and “or other legal process”. Parliament would have supposed the moratorium to be applicable around not only authorized proceedings in the regular perception (i.e. applications, proceedings or matters in Courtroom) but also a broader spectrum of ‘legal processes’.

The moratorium is meant for the underlying objective of the corporate rescue mechanism, being the survival of the business or the rehabilitation of the corporation. The statutory demand would without doubt set force on the business to make payment to the creditor and the creditor, Exxobrite, would as a result receive an benefit above other collectors.

However, in selecting no matter whether to strike out the winding up petition, the Court docket observed that the petition was also primarily based on the alternate ground of segment 466(1)(c) of the CA 2016. It would not be a plain and apparent circumstance for hanging out.

2nd, the Courtroom proceeded to listen to the petition itself and made a decision to wind up the enterprise.

Exxobrite was already an admitted creditor by way of the judicial administration method. The judicial supervisor experienced accepted Exxobrite’s evidence of financial debt.

Subsequent. the judicial manager’s statement of proposal reflected the company’s existing liabilities at RM19.4 million but with present-day property only at RM8.7 million. The Courtroom applied the exam of commercial insolvency in whether or not the organization is capable to satisfy its existing money owed.

Finally, the Court docket also took into account the numerous really serious allegations of misappropriation of funds and dissipation of assets. The property of the company were being in jeopardy. There was a tumble-out involving the various factions of the administrators and shareholders. The Court identified that there was an overpowering evidence of the company’s professional insolvency and that the corporation was now paralysed and in a condition of defunct. It was just and equitable that the company be wound up.


This conclusion does display the wide security available by a moratorium in judicial management. This scenario was decided in a situation of the moratorium following the JM Order is granted. But this would similarly use to the first moratorium after the submitting of the judicial management software below segment 410(c): “no other proceedings and no execution or other lawful procedure shall be commenced … towards the company“.

Even so, exactly where the judicial administration approach is unsuccessful, it does expose the enterprise to the quick menace of winding up.

Soon after all, even the submitting of a judicial management application must be wherever the Court considers that “the enterprise is or will be unable to pay back its money owed” (below portion 404(a) of the CA 2016) i.e. where the firm is basically insolvent.

If the judicial supervisor is appointed, the judicial supervisor would have to ascertain and acknowledge to the existence of the money owed owed to the creditors.

The Statement of Proposal would also confess to the fiscal situation of the firm, and where by it is most likely that the corporation would be cashflow insolvent and equilibrium sheet insolvent.

Leave a Reply