Suhaimi bin Remli
About Suhaimi bin Remli
Suhaimi bin Remli appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025). These were heard before MYHC (3).
On the court record
Illustrates how the sanction regime under section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 constrains an undischarged bankrupt's litigation capacity and shapes the disposal of such actions.
Suhaimi bin Remli appears in this corpus as counsel for the defendant in a group of related High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) proceedings brought by originating summons and turning on insolvency law. The plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt, and the recurring threshold question was whether he could institute the actions without first obtaining the sanction of the Director General of Insolvency, and whether proceeding without that sanction contravened section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967. That provision limits the capacity of an undischarged bankrupt to bring certain proceedings, and it can dispose of an action at the outset, before the merits are examined.
The proceedings raised several connected points. One was whether sanction is required where the action is brought against the Director General of Insolvency himself, for an alleged failure in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities while acting as Official Assignee of a particular estate — the argument being that a claim of that character is not an ordinary bankrupt's suit to recover property. Another was whether the doctrine of res judicata barred the action, and, in the claim against a bank, whether causes of action founded on defamation and harassment, said to have been pursued through deceitful means, could be maintained by an undischarged bankrupt without sanction.
A wider question also surfaced: whether section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act, in its present form, imposes undue hardship on undischarged bankrupts, such that legislative reform was warranted in the interests of fairness and justice. As counsel for the defendant, Suhaimi bin Remli's role was to meet the plaintiff's claims and to press the threshold objections founded on the sanction requirement and res judicata. The matters illustrate how the sanction regime under the Insolvency Act 1967 constrains the litigation capacity of an undischarged bankrupt and shapes the disposal of such actions.
How many cases has Suhaimi bin Remli appeared in?
Suhaimi bin Remli appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025).
Which courts does Suhaimi bin Remli appear in?
Suhaimi bin Remli appears before MYHC (3).
What threshold question ran through these proceedings?
Whether an undischarged bankrupt could bring the actions without the sanction of the Director General of Insolvency, and whether proceeding without sanction contravened section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 — a point capable of disposing of the actions at the outset.
What connected issues arose?
Whether sanction is required to sue the Director General for alleged failures as Official Assignee, whether res judicata barred the action, and whether defamation and harassment claims could be maintained without sanction — alongside whether section 38(1)(a) imposes undue hardship warranting reform.