PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA WISMA PUNCA EMAS PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN FOO CHENG CHEONG

Case Significance

Instructive on the validity of substituted service of a bankruptcy petition and on the territorial reach of a High Court judge's jurisdiction under Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution, where a debtor challenges the forum of a strata-award-based bankruptcy.

This High Court decision at Seremban is an appeal from a Senior Assistant Registrar's decision in bankruptcy proceedings. The judgment debtor appealed against the Senior Assistant Registrar's refusal of his summons-in-chambers application to set aside and annul a bankruptcy petition filed against him by the judgment creditor, the joint management body Badan Pengurusan Bersama Wisma Punca Emas. The bankruptcy action arose from an award of the Strata Management Tribunal at Putrajaya, made in 2022 in the sum of RM116,614.28, which was to be satisfied within 30 days. When the judgment debtor failed to pay, the judgment creditor served a bankruptcy notice by substituted service and subsequently filed the bankruptcy petition. The judgment debtor's grounds for setting aside were that the address used for attempted service of the bankruptcy notice was not the address stated on it, that substituted service of the petition by advertisement was invalid, and that filing the petition at the Seremban High Court was contrary to law because his current address showed him resident in Johor Bahru. The court, per Wan Fadhilah Nor binti Wan Idris J, rejected each ground. It held that raising the service-address point at that stage was an afterthought, and that even if the judgment debtor was resident in Johor Bahru, filing the petition at the Seremban High Court did not affect the validity of the action, because a High Court judge is appointed to the institution of the High Court and not to any particular state, the judicial power of a High Court judge in Malaya extending throughout Peninsular Malaysia under Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution. Finding that the service of the petition was valid and effective and that the application was a bare abuse of process filed only to delay a lawful bankruptcy proceeding, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Senior Assistant Registrar's decision with costs. The judgment is instructive on the validity of substituted service and on the territorial reach of a High Court judge's jurisdiction in bankruptcy.