Chong Kok Wooi (bertindak Atas Kapasiti Sendiri Dan Juga Mewakili Kumpulan Pemilik-pemilik Unit Kondominium Marinox Sky Villas)

Person 1 case

Chong Kok Wooi (bertindak Atas Kapasiti Sendiri Dan Juga Mewakili Kumpulan Pemilik-pemilik Unit Kondominium Marinox Sky Villas) appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

p-02ncvca-431-03-2024

1. ) ANDREW HENG 2. ) MASMEYER DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (Dalam Likuidasi) v CHONG KOK WOOI (bertindak atas kapasiti sendiri dan juga mewakili kumpulan pemilik-pemilik unit kondominium Marinox Sky Villas)

MYCOA 25 June 2025

See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.

About Chong Kok Wooi (bertindak Atas Kapasiti Sendiri Dan Juga Mewakili Kumpulan Pemilik-pemilik Unit Kondominium Marinox Sky Villas)

Chong Kok Wooi (bertindak Atas Kapasiti Sendiri Dan Juga Mewakili Kumpulan Pemilik-pemilik Unit Kondominium Marinox Sky Villas) appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning June 2025 to June 2025. Chong Kok Wooi (bertindak Atas Kapasiti Sendiri Dan Juga Mewakili Kumpulan Pemilik-pemilik Unit Kondominium Marinox Sky Villas) appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the Court of Appeal (1).

How many court cases involve Chong Kok Wooi (bertindak Atas Kapasiti Sendiri Dan Juga Mewakili Kumpulan Pemilik-pemilik Unit Kondominium Marinox Sky Villas)?

Chong Kok Wooi (bertindak Atas Kapasiti Sendiri Dan Juga Mewakili Kumpulan Pemilik-pemilik Unit Kondominium Marinox Sky Villas) appears in 1 published judgment from June 2025 to June 2025. Most commonly as respondent (1 cases).

Practice Areas

leave of court is required in an action or a proceeding against a liquidator- that leave is required before an action can be filed against a liquidator of a wound-up company- 1 since the leave of court was not obtained before the OS was filed, the plaintiff’s OS is incompetent and should be disallowed- The powers of the liquidator in a winding up by the Court order is provided for by section 486 of the CA As a court appointed liquidator, the 1st defendant is an officer of the court, hence leave of court is required before any action or proceeding is taken against him The need for leave before any proceedings may be commenced against a liquidator is to ensure that he could carry out his statutory duty without having to defend any unnecessary litigation that may hinder the winding up process of a company 1 In view of the onerous statutory duty of a liquidator, there should not be any preference to any class of person who wishes to commence a proceeding against a liquidator 1

Respondent (1)

p-02ncvca-431-03-2024 MYCOA

25 June 2025