Abuse of Winding Up Proceedings as a Debt Recovery Mechanism in Malaysia and the Judicial Control

The process of winding up implies the termination of the existence of the company’s assets being collected, realized and distributed to its creditors. Winding-up is generally considered as a financial collapse of the company. The main objective of this paper is to discuss the abuse of the winding up proceeding as a method of debt recovery mechanism by the judiciary in Malaysia. The analysis presented here will highlight different types of abuse found in winding up proceedings especially when they are utilized for exerting commercial pressures over the debtor companies rather than dealing with their insolvency problems. It also discusses the extent to which the concept of judicial controls can be implemented to curb all these challenges. Qualitative approach was adopted as research methodology with both doctrinal and comparative approaches employed to analyze primary sources (legislations and case laws) together with other secondary source materials namely book and journal articles. Findings revealed that though Malaysian courts had played a great role in curtailing the filing of the abusive petitions as well as misuses of insolvency processes through applying some mechanisms like bona-fide-dispute principle & fortuna jurisdiction, however there are still some measures required to ensure effectiveness of the application of winding-up proceedings as a collective remedies by giving more consideration to judicial interventions.

Winding up proceedings, Debt recovery, Judicial control, Creditor protection

1. Journal Articles & Books [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chan, D., and Rajagopal, S., ‘To Stay or Not to Stay? A Clash of Arbitration and Insolvency Regimes’ (2020) 32 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 494. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cownie, F., & Bradney, A. (2013). Socio-legal studies: A challenge to the doctrinal approach. In D. Watkins & M. Burton (Eds.), Research methods in law (pp. 42–62). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Finch, V., & Milman, D. (2023). Corporate insolvency law: Perspectives and principles (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. McConville, M., & Chui, W. H. (Eds.). (2017). Research methods for law (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Salter, M., & Mason, J. (2007). Writing law dissertations: An introduction and guide to the conduct of legal research. Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Thim Wai Chen, Ruzita Azmi and Rohana Abdul Rahman, ‘Paradigm Shift from a Liquidation Culture to a Corporate Rescue Culture in Malaysia: A Legal Review’ (2018) Malayan Law Journal 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Case Laws [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Chip Yew Brick Works Sdn Bhd v Chang Heer Enterprise Sdn Bhd [1988] 2 MLJ 447. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fortuna Holdings Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1978] VR 83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mobikom Sdn Bhd v Inmiss Communications Sdn Bhd [2007] 3 MLJ 316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd v Muniammah Muniandy [2010] 1 MLJ 867. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Re Mechanised Construction Pte Ltd [1989] 1 MLJ 183. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Re Sim Poh Ping [2020] SGCA 35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. RHB Bank Bhd v Malaysia Pacific Corporation Bhd [2018] 3 MLJ 721. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sri Hartamas Development Sdn Bhd v MBF Finance Bhd [1992] 1 MLJ. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Stonegate Securities Ltd v Gregory [1980] Ch 576. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sun Soon Heng Coach Works Sdn Bhd v Nima Travel Sdn Bhd [1986] 2 MLJ 374. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Swissray Asia Healthcare Co Ltd v V Medical Services (M) Sdn Bhd [2024] CLJU 1358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. UDA Holdings Bhd v Bisraya Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 11 MLJ 499. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. V Medical Services (M) Sdn Bhd v Swissray Asia Healthcare Co Ltd [2025] 4 MLJ 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Visage Continental Sdn Bhd v Smooth Track Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 MLJ 101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar