The common law obligation of 'R&M' and the obligation of liquidator in a compulsory winding is inextricably interwoven. There may be slight difference in the removal of liquidator in a voluntary winding up as the liquidator is appointed by agreement of parties and not through the courts; and the process of removal need not be through a court procedure though any misconduct of a liquidator in a voluntary winding up may be subject to the same jurisprudence as advocated by courts in a compulsory winding up

In the Court of Appeal case of Tee Siew Kai (sebagai pelikuidas bagi Merger Acceptance Sdn Bhd) (dalam likuidasi) v Machang Indah Development Sdn Bhd (dahulu dikenali sebagai Rakyat Corp Sdn Bhd) [2018] MLJU 1628, it was held that "[7] In essence, the common law obligation of 'R&M' and the obligation of liquidator in a compulsory winding is inextricably interwoven. There may be slight difference in the removal of liquidator in a voluntary winding up as the liquidator is appointed by agreement of parties and not through the courts; and the process of removal need not be through a court procedure though any misconduct of a liquidator in a voluntary winding up may be subject to the same jurisprudence as advocated by courts in a compulsory winding up."

Popular Posts