1. ) LOKASI CANGGIH SDN BHD 2. ) LIM CHEE TAT v TEE GUAN PIAN

ba-28pw-267-10-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 8 December 2025 • BA-28PW-267-10/2024

Catchwords

Application for leave to commence proceedings against liquidator—Whether leave required where proceedings framed against liquidator in personal capacity—Protective purpose of leave requirement—Inherent jurisdiction of winding-up court—Companies Act 2016, ss 486, 507, 541—Applicable threshold—Requirement to establish prima facie breach of duty supported by evidence—Requirement to demonstrate real prospect of pecuniary loss to company—Mere dissatisfaction with conduct of liquidation insufficient—Professional judgment and decisions taken in course of liquidation—Alleged failure to accept offer for sale of charged properties—Authority of secured creditor—No binding offer—Delay in recovery of surplus proceeds—No proven loss—Investment of surplus funds—Unit trust investment—Alleged shortfall not supported by evidence—Late submission of RPGT—Responsibility of chargee—Solicitors’ fees, remuneration, meetings of creditors—Compliance with statutory procedures—Whether allegations speculative or vexatious—Protection of integrity and finality of liquidation process— threshold for granting leave is not low-what the cases require is clear, credible, and compelling evidence of breach, coupled with a real likelihood of proving loss-Leave refused—Application dismissed with costs.

Practice Areas

Application for leave to commence proceedings against liquidator—Whether leave required where proceedings framed against liquidator in personal capacity—Protective purpose of leave requirement—Inherent jurisdiction of winding-up court—Companies Act 2016, ss 486, 507, 541—Applicable threshold—Requirement to establish prima facie breach of duty supported by evidence—Requirement to demonstrate real prospect of pecuniary loss to company—Mere dissatisfaction with conduct of liquidation insufficient—Professional judgment and decisions taken in course of liquidation—Alleged failure to accept offer for sale of charged properties—Authority of secured creditor—No binding offer—Delay in recovery of surplus proceeds—No proven loss—Investment of surplus funds—Unit trust investment—Alleged shortfall not supported by evidence—Late submission of RPGT—Responsibility of chargee—Solicitors’ fees, remuneration, meetings of creditors—Compliance with statutory procedures—Whether allegations speculative or vexatious—Protection of integrity and finality of liquidation process— threshold for granting leave is not low-what the cases require is clear, credible, and compelling evidence of breach, coupled with a real likelihood of proving loss-Leave refused—Application dismissed with costs.

Judges (1)

Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran Delivered

Parties (3)

LOKASI CANGGIH Sdn Bhd Applicant Lim Chee Tat Applicant Tee Guan Pian Respondent

Case Significance

1. ) LOKASI CANGGIH SDN BHD 2. ) LIM CHEE TAT v TEE GUAN PIAN is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated December 8, 2025 (citation: ba-28pw-267-10-2024). The case was decided by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran.

What was the outcome of 1. ) LOKASI CANGGIH SDN BHD 2. ) LIM CHEE TAT v TEE GUAN PIAN?

1. ) LOKASI CANGGIH SDN BHD 2. ) LIM CHEE TAT v TEE GUAN PIAN is a High Court decision dated December 8, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran. See the full judgment for details.