GLOMAXES LATEX GLOVE MANUFACTURER Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A manufacturer whose matters cut across insolvency practice, the fishing-expedition limits on discovery, and the setting-aside and enforcement of a CIPAA adjudication decision.

GLOMAXES LATEX GLOVE MANUFACTURER Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus across winding-up, discovery and construction-adjudication matters connected to a healthcare-products group, and its appearances span three procedural regimes. In a winding-up matter the company sought leave to file an affidavit in opposition to a petition out of time under Rule 193 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972; the petitioner opposed, contending the delay of nearly ten months was inordinate, inexcusable and a calculated strategy to obstruct the petition, while the company attributed the delay to financial constraints and ongoing director disputes, leaving the court to exercise its discretion in the interests of justice.

In a discovery matter under Order 24 rules 3 and 7 of the Rules of Court 2012, the company appears in a dispute over whether delay was fatal to a discovery application, whether inspection could be ordered of documents to which a party was never privy, and whether the request amounted to a fishing expedition, the documents being said to be relevant and necessary for trial. Separately, in connected originating summonses the company litigated an adjudication decision under sections 15(b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), appearing as both applicant to set aside and respondent to enforcement.

For a reader, the cluster illustrates how a manufacturer's disputes cut across insolvency practice, pre-trial discovery and construction-payment adjudication: the discretion to admit a late affidavit in a winding-up, the fishing-expedition limits on discovery, and the setting-aside and enforcement of a CIPAA adjudication decision. The corporate parties are named as they appear on the record; individuals are referred to by their procedural role only. The three procedural regimes the company litigates across — winding-up practice, pre-trial discovery and CIPAA adjudication — each turn on a discretionary threshold: whether justice requires admitting a late affidavit, whether a document request is genuinely necessary or a fishing expedition, and whether an adjudication decision was reached without jurisdictional or natural-justice error. The variety underlines how many distinct gateways a manufacturer's disputes must pass through.