Goik Kenwayne

On the court record

A corporate and insolvency litigation practice with a distinctive administration and estate component.

Goik Kenwayne practises in corporate and insolvency litigation, appearing mainly in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) with some Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) work, and the reported decisions record appearances as respondent, defendant, plaintiff and petitioner. Company law is central, including winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act 2016 — engaging the provisions in sections 465, 469 and 487 governing the grounds and process for winding a company up — together with contract disputes and arbitration questions.

A distinctive strand concerns the appointment and role of administrators and other office-holders, including administrators pendente lite in a contested estate, so the practice reaches both corporate insolvency and the administration of disputed estates. Appearing on both sides of the record, the practice is instructed by companies, creditors and estates, in matters that turn on the governing statute and on the procedural framework for winding up, administration and the appointment of office-holders.

The work turns on the interpretation of the Companies Act and the probate and arbitration frameworks. In the winding-up matters the argument concerns whether the statutory grounds are made out and whether the process has been properly invoked; in the administration matters the appointment and powers of the office-holder; in the arbitration matters whether a dispute must be referred; and in the contract matters the construction of the agreement. The reported reasons frequently address the procedural machinery of insolvency and estate administration.

The overall profile is a corporate and insolvency litigation practice with a distinctive administration and estate component, conducted principally at first instance in the High Court. The matters turn on the Companies Act, the winding-up provisions, and the frameworks governing administrators and disputed estates, rather than on any criminal or public-law dimension, marking a practice built around corporate insolvency and the appointment of office-holders. The pairing of winding-up with disputed-estate administration gives the practice a dual insolvency-and-probate character less common in the corpus.