The appellant was the alter ego of two companies, namely Lapan Jaya Enterprise Sdn Bhd (`Lapan Jaya') and Disporex Sdn Bhd (`Disporex'). Under the appellant's instructions, Lapan Jaya and Disporex opened a shares margin account with the first respondent. The appellant then gave instructions to the first respondent as to what shares to purchase and when there were contra losses, the appellant would make proposals to settle the outstanding. The account incurred a loss and subsequently, neither the appellant, Lapan Jaya and Disporex made payments to the first respondent. The first respondent claimed against the appellant, Lapan Jaya and Disporex and asserted that at all material times, the appellant was solely responsible for the losses sustained by the first respondent under Lapan Jaya and Disporex accounts. Before the trial of the claim, a receiving order (`RO') was made against the appellant resulting in the second respondent being constituted as the receiver of the appellant's estate. The first respondent then filed a proof debt (`POD') against the estate of the appellant, claiming for a total of RM18,756,868.50. The second respondent, as receiver of the appellant's estate had rejected the POD on the grounds that the debt was not a provable debt under s. 40 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 (`the Act'). The first respondent then took out an originating summons at the High Court, seeking orders that the decision of the second respondent, acting as receiver of the estate of the appellant, in rejecting the plaintiff's POD be reversed; and that the Director General of Insolvency accepts and fully admits the plaintiff's claim as stated in the said POD. The High Court allowed the originating summons. In the present appeal against the said decision, the first respondent argued that the appellant had no locus standi to appeal and that the record of appeal was incomplete.

Held (dismissing appeal with costs)

Per Azahar Mohamed JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) The appellant was never a party to the originating summons. There were no proper applications to intervene into the proceeding whether at the High Court or Court of Appeal. (para 6)

(2) There could be no doubt that the record of appeal was incomplete as it did not contain notes of proceedings, grounds of decision; and the sealed order. The appellant had not shown any proof that he had applied for the said items. Practice Direction No 2 of 1991 stipulated that one week after the notice of appeal was filed, the appellant had to apply to the judge's secretary to be supplied with a copy of the notes of proceeding. The non-compliance with the Practice Direction and r. 18(4)(b), (d) and (e) of the Rules of the Court Appeal 1994, where copy of the judgment was not included in the record of appeal, was not an irregularity but a nullity. (paras 7 & 8)

(3) The debt was in fact incurred by the appellant as he was responsible for the losses incurred by the first respondent under the accounts of Lapan Jaya and Disporex. The debt was one which was present, certain and which the appellant was subject to at the date of the RO. Hence, it was a debt provable in bankruptcy under s. 40(3) of the Act. Furthermore, after the RO was entered, the appellant did not dispute to the POD filed by the first respondent. (para 11)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu merupakan alter ego bagi dua syarikat, iaitu Lapan Jaya Enterprise Sdn Bhd (`Lapan Jaya') dan Disporex Sdn Bhd (`Disporex'). Atas arahan perayu, Lapan Jaya dan Disporex membuka akaun saham margin dengan responden pertama. Perayu memberikan arahan kepada responden pertama tentang saham-saham yang harus dibeli dan di mana terdapat kerugian kontra, perayu akan membuat cadangan untuk menyelesaikan yang mana yang belum diselesaikan. Akaun mengalami kerugian dan kemudian, perayu, Lapan Jaya mahupun Disporex tidak membuat bayaran kepada responden pertama. Responden pertama menuntut daripada perayu, Lapan Jaya dan Disporex dan menghujahkan bahawa pada setiap masa material, perayu bertanggungan sepenuhnya bagi kerugian yang dialami oleh responden pertama di bawah akaun-akaun Lapan Jaya dan Disporex. Sebelum perbicaraan tuntutan tersebut, satu perintah penerimaan (`PP') dibuat terhadap perayu, mengakibatkan responden kedua dijadikan penerima estet perayu. Responden pertama seterusnya memfailkan bukti keberhutangan (`BK') terhadap estet perayu, dengan menuntut sejumlah RM18,756,868.50. Responden kedua, sebagai penerima estet perayu telah menolak BK atas alasan bahawa hutang tersebut bukanlah hutang yang boleh dibuktikan di bawah s. 40 Akta Kebankrapan 1967 (`Akta'). Responden pertama kemudian memulakan saman pemula di Mahkamah Tinggi, memohon perintah-perintah bahawa keputusan responden kedua, yang bertindak sebagai penerima estet perayu, dalam menolak BK plaintif di atas; dan bahawa Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi menerima dan mengakui sepenuhnya tuntutan plaintif seperti yang dinyatakan dalam BK. Mahkamah Tinggi membenarkan saman pemula. Dalam rayuan terhadap keputusan tersebut, responden pertama menghujahkan bahawa perayu tidak mempunyai locus standi untuk merayu dan bahawa rekod rayuan tidak lengkap.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan dengan kos)

Oleh Azahar Mohamed HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Perayu tidak pernah menjadi pihak kepada saman pemula. Tiada permohonan sewajarnya yang dibuat untuk mencelah prosiding tersebut sama ada di Mahkamah Tinggi mahupun Mahkamah Rayuan.

(2) Tiada keraguan bahawa rekod rayuan tidak lengkap kerana ia tidak mengandungi nota prosiding; alasan penghakiman dan perintah yang dimeterai. Perayu tidak menunjukkan sebarang bukti bahawa ia telah memohon item-item tersebut. Arahan Amalan No 2 1991 menyatakan bahawa seminggu selepas notis rayuan difailkan, perayu hendaklah memohon kepada setiausaha hakim agar diberikan sesalinan nota prosiding. Ketidakpatuhan Arahan Amalan dan k. 18(4)(b), (d) dan (e) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan 1954, yang mana salinan penghakiman tidak disertakan dalam rekod rayuan, bukanlah satu salah aturan tetapi satu pembatalan.

(3) Hutang tersebut sememangnya diakibatkan oleh perayu kerana dia bertanggungjawab bagi kerugian terhadap responden pertama di bawah akaun-akaun Lapan Jaya dan Disporex. Hutang tersebut wujud, pasti dan yang mana perayu tertakluk kepada tarikh PP. Dengan itu, ia adalah hutang yang boleh dibuktikan dalam kebankrapan di bawah s. 40(3) Akta. Selanjutnya, selepas PP dimasukkan, perayu tidak menafikan BK yang difailkan oleh responden pertama.

Case(s) referred to:

Capital Insurance Bhd v. Kasim Mohd Ali [2000] 1 CLJ 269 CA (refd)

Chuah Tim Lan v. RHB Bank Bhd & Anor [2008] 6 CLJ 500 CA (refd)

Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 CLJ 609 CA (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Bankruptcy Act 1967, s. 40(3)

Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 42(1)

Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, r. 18(4)(b), (d), (e)

Counsel:

For the appellant - Rim Lee; M/s J Ambrose & Partners

For the 1st respondent - Christopher KH Chong; M/s Lind Willie Wong & Chin

For the estate of 2nd respondent - Director General of Insolvency, Kota Kinabalu Branch

[Appeal from High Court of Sabah & Sarawak, Kota Kinabalu; Originating Summons No: 24-17-2005]

Reported by Najib Tamby

---

---