MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) LOW YEW GUAN 2. ) LEE OI KUAN 3. ) LOW YEW LIM 4. ) TEO PECK KWAN 5. ) DATO TS. HJ. MOHD ZAIDI llAMDIN dan 195 lain

wa-28jm-34-12-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 15 July 2025 • WA-28JM-34-12/2024

Catchwords

Under section 405 of CA 2016, the court has the power to grant or dismiss an application for a judicial management order-The application for the JMO must be made by the company or its creditor-The shareholders of the Company lack the locus standi to file a JM application in their capacity as shareholders of the Company-The application may be made by ex parte OS-The court should hear the ex parte application for a JMO early and scrutinise carefully whether to grant the JMO or not as the effect of the filing of an application for JM is the imposition of a moratorium on all legal proceedings until the dismissal of the application-The application for a JMO may be made again if the first application failed. The CA 2016 does not limit the application for a JMO to only once. What is important is that the criteria set out in section 405(1) of CA 2016 is satisfied, it is made bona fide and there is full and frank disclosure of all material facts-23. If the 2nd application for a JMO shows the application is “to misuse and manipulate the provisions of the Companies Act 2016 to derail, disrupt and/or to stall or delay any Winding Up proceedings or legal actions being commenced against it with the aforementioned filings of various applications or matters in different forums. … [it] is an abuse of Court process in the circumstances and the court will strike out the OS under Order 18 rule 19 ROC 2012-24. The Court must dismiss the JM application pursuant to section 409(b) of the CA 2016 if it is satisfied that: (a) a receiver or receiver and manager referred to in subparagraph 408(1)(b)(ii) has been or will be appointed; or (b) the making of the order is opposed by a secured creditor, unless the Court considers the public interest so requires as set out in section 405(5) CA 2016-he burden is on the applicant to satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that there is a plan that would likely achieve the survival of the company as a going concern. If the court is not satisfied, the application will be dismissed-Rule 13 (1) of the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018-unsecured creditors do not possess locus standi to intervene in judicial management proceedings-Once a JM application is filed in court, no other proceeding, execution or other legal process shall be commenced or continued and no distress may be levied against the applicant or its property except with leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose-As such, in line with the aforesaid objective, the starting principle when entertaining an application for leave under s 368(1) of the CA is that such leave will only be granted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and the burden will be on the applicant to show so-only be granted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and the burden will be on the applicant to show-The Proposed interveners have failed to show why leave should be granted bearing in mind the objective of a moratorium is for the applicant to “come up with a rescue plan that would enable all to be paid”

Practice Areas

Under section 405 of CA 2016, the court has the power to grant or dismiss an application for a judicial management order-The application for the JMO must be made by the company or its creditor-The shareholders of the Company lack the locus standi to file a JM application in their capacity as shareholders of the Company-The application may be made by ex parte OS-The court should hear the ex parte application for a JMO early and scrutinise carefully whether to grant the JMO or not as the effect of the filing of an application for JM is the imposition of a moratorium on all legal proceedings until the dismissal of the application-The application for a JMO may be made again if the first application failed. The CA 2016 does not limit the application for a JMO to only once. What is important is that the criteria set out in section 405(1) of CA 2016 is satisfied, it is made bona fide and there is full and frank disclosure of all material facts-23. If the 2nd application for a JMO shows the application is “to misuse and manipulate the provisions of the Companies Act 2016 to derail, disrupt and/or to stall or delay any Winding Up proceedings or legal actions being commenced against it with the aforementioned filings of various applications or matters in different forums. … it is an abuse of Court process in the circumstances and the court will strike out the OS under Order 18 rule 19 ROC 2012-24. The Court must dismiss the JM application pursuant to section 409(b) of the CA 2016 if it is satisfied that: (a) a receiver or receiver and manager referred to in subparagraph 408(1)(b)(ii) has been or will be appointed; or (b) the making of the order is opposed by a secured creditor, unless the Court considers the public interest so requires as set out in section 405(5) CA 2016-he burden is on the applicant to satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that there is a plan that would likely achieve the survival of the company as a going concern. If the court is not satisfied, the application will be dismissed-Rule 13 (1) of the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018-unsecured creditors do not possess locus standi to intervene in judicial management proceedings-Once a JM application is filed in court, no other proceeding, execution or other legal process shall be commenced or continued and no distress may be levied against the applicant or its property except with leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose-As such, in line with the aforesaid objective, the starting principle when entertaining an application for leave under s 368(1) of the CA is that such leave will only be granted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and the burden will be on the applicant to show so-only be granted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and the burden will be on the applicant to show-The Proposed interveners have failed to show why leave should be granted bearing in mind the objective of a moratorium is for the applicant to “come up with a rescue plan that would enable all to be paid”

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (6)

MILLENNIUM MALL Sdn Bhd Applicant Dato Ts. Hj. Mohd Zaidi Llamdin Dan 195 Lain Intervener Lee Oi Kuan Intervener Low Yew Guan Intervener Low Yew Lim Intervener Teo Peck Kwan Intervener

Case Significance

MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) LOW YEW GUAN 2. ) LEE OI KUAN 3. ) LOW ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 15, 2025 (citation: wa-28jm-34-12-2024). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) LOW YEW GUAN 2. ) LEE OI KUAN 3. ) LOW ...?

MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) LOW YEW GUAN 2. ) LEE OI KUAN 3. ) LOW ... is a High Court decision dated July 15, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.