The appellant, a provisional liquidator (`PL') of the respondent company, was appointed by the High Court with a specific mandate to ascertain the disposal alternatives and to submit a report on the current market value of Putra Place. After completing her task, the PL filed an application for, inter alia, her appointed valuer's fees amounting to RM333,919.50 and HKD16,000 respectively. However, the High Court Judge dismissed the PL's claim in relation to the valuer's fees/costs in procuring the valuation report from Knight Frank, a valuation firm from Hong Kong. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the PL's appeal. Hence, this appeal. The central issue that arose was whether the costs sought by a PL was reasonable or otherwise in relation to the performance of the court's mandate to the PL.

Held (dismissing appeal with costs)

Per Hashim Yusoff FCJ delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) Section 232(2) of the Companies Act 1965 only refers to the PL's salary or remuneration. It does not apply to fees or costs of the valuer appointed by the PL. The question of reasonableness of the costs of the valuer is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge (Terengganu Forest Products Sdn Bhd v. Cosco Container Lines Co Ltd & Anor & Other Applications; refd). (paras 21 & 28)

(2) In relation to the appointment of Knight Frank, there was no evidence to show that the views of the respondent were sought before the appointment was made. Nor was there any evidence to show any compelling reason for the appointment of a valuation firm from Hong Kong to do the valuation. It was also not shown that a local Malaysian valuation firm could not have done the job. Further, it was observed that there was a marginal difference of 0.98% only between the valuation done by Knight Frank and that done by CH Williams Talhar, a local firm. (para 23)

(3) The issue of reasonableness of the costs incurred was well within the discretion and prerogative power of the learned High Court Judge on whether to allow or dismiss the PL's claim based on the evidence before the court. The High Court Judge had meticulously embarked on a careful judicial appreciation and assessment of the evidence adduced before the court. Likewise, the Court of Appeal had not erred in affirming the decision of the High Court. Thus, there was no reason for this court to interfere and it was also unnecessary to answer the question posed in this appeal as the appeal had no chance of success, being a decision based on the discretion of the High Court on a factual issue. (para 26, 27 & 29)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu, penyelesai sementara (`PS') syarikat responden, telah dilantik oleh Mahkamah Tinggi untuk suatu mandat spesifik bagi menentukan pelupusan alternatif dan mengemukakan satu laporan berkenaan nilai pasaran terkini bagi Putra Place. Setelah menyelesaikan tugasnya, PS memfailkan permohonan untuk, antara lain, fi penilai yang dilantik masing-masing berjumlah RM333,919.50 dan HKD16,000. Walau bagaimanapun, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi menolak tuntutan PS berkenaan fi/kos penilai dalam memperolehi laporan penilaian daripada Knight Frank, suatu firma penilaian di Hong Kong. Atas rayuan, Mahkamah Rayuan menolak rayuan PS. Oleh itu, rayuan ini. Isu yang dibangkitkan adalah sama ada kos yang dituntut oleh PS adalah munasabah atau sebaliknya berkaitan dengan pelaksanaan mandat mahkamah terhadap PS.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan dengan kos)

Oleh Hashim Yusoff HMP menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Seksyen 232(2) Akta Syarikat 1965 hanya merujuk kepada gaji PS. Ia tidak terpakai kepada fi atau kos penilai yang dilantik oleh PS. Persoalan berkenaan kemunasabahan kos penilai merupakan persoalan fakta yang perlu diputuskan oleh hakim bicara (Terengganu Forest Products Sdn Bhd v. Cosco Container Lines Co Ltd & Anor & Other Applications; dirujuk).

(2) Berkenaan pelantikan Knight Frank, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa pendapat responden telah diminta sebelum pelantikan dibuat. Tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan sebarang alasan bagi pelantikan firma penilaian dari Hong Kong untuk membuat penilaian. Juga tidak ditunjukkan bahawa firma penilaian tempatan di Malaysia tidak mampu membuat kerja tersebut. Selanjutnya, terdapat perbezaan marginal hanya sebanyak 0.98% antara penilaian yang dibuat oleh Knight Frank dan yang dibuat oleh CH Williams Talhar, sebuah firma tempatan.

(3) Isu kemunasabahan kos yang ditanggung adalah dalam budi bicara dan hak prerogatif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi sama ada hendak membenarkan atau menolak tuntutan PS berdasarkan keterangan yang dikemukakan di mahkamah. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah, secara teliti, menjurus kepada pertimbangan kehakiman dan penilaian keterangan yang dikemukakan di mahkamah. Sama seperti itu, Mahkamah Rayuan tidak khilaf dalam mengesahkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi. Oleh itu, tiada sebab untuk mahkamah ini campur tangan dan soalan yang dikemukakan dalam rayuan ini tidak perlu dijawab disebabkan rayuan ini tidak mempunyai peluang untuk berjaya, memandangkan ia adalah suatu keputusan berdasarkan budi bicara Mahkamah Tinggi atas isu fakta.

Case(s) referred to:

Australian Securities And Investments Commission v. Rowena Nominees Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2006] 225 ALR 147 (refd)

Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309 FC (refd)

Terengganu Forest Products Sdn Bhd v. Cosco Container Lines Co Ltd & Anor & Other Applications [2011] 1 CLJ 51 FC (refd)

Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v. Conlan [1998] 16 ACLC 1653 (refd)

Wong Sin Fan & Ors v. Ng Peak Yam & Anor [2013] 3 CLJ 17 FC (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Companies Act 1965, ss. 232(2), 236(1), (2)

Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972, r. 173

Counsel:

For the appellant - Ng Sai Yeang (Mark Yu Kee La Brooy & Hew Sheau Ying with him); M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh

For the respondent - Wong Rhen Yen (Goik Kenwayne with her); M/s Dennis, Nik & Wong

[Appeal from Court of Appeal; Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)-2375-2009]

Reported by Kumitha Abd Majid