MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) v TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the procedural limits of a judgment debtor summons, holding that a creditor seeking a corporate debtor's historical bank records must satisfy the leave requirements of Order 48 rule 1(2) and must not use the process as an asset-tracing exercise.

This High Court decision at Muar concerns three consolidated appeals to a Judge in Chambers against a decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar in execution proceedings, and the limits of a judgment debtor summons as a tool for obtaining a debtor's financial records. The judgment creditor, MTrustee Berhad — formerly known as AmTrustee Berhad and suing as trustee for a real estate investment trust — sought to examine the judgment debtor, a body corporate, and had made an oral application before the commencement of the judgment debtor summons hearing seeking production of the debtor's bank accounts for previous years. The Senior Assistant Registrar dismissed that oral application, and the creditor appealed. The issues before the Court included whether the creditor had complied with the requirements of Order 48 rule 1(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 — in particular by obtaining leave to issue a judgment debtor summons against an officer of the corporate debtor and leave for that officer to produce the relevant documents — and whether the creditor's request in truth amounted to an asset-tracing exercise or a historical assessment of monies spent, rather than a proper examination of present means. The Court examined the scope and purpose of the judgment debtor summons procedure and the extent of the court's inherent flexibility in that context. Concluding that the Senior Assistant Registrar's decision was correct, the Court upheld it and dismissed the creditor's three appeals with costs. The judgment illustrates the boundaries of the judgment debtor summons process and the procedural prerequisites under Order 48 for compelling a corporate debtor's officer to produce financial documents. The Court emphasised that the examination is concerned with what the debtor presently owns and can pay, not with reconstructing past expenditure, and that permitting the wide production sought would have converted the summons into a general investigative tool that Order 48 does not sanction. It therefore saw no reason to disturb the Registrar's exercise of discretion.