Ong Kwong Yew’s case is also referred to in the High Court case of Re Sineo Enterprise Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) [2021] MLJU 996, wherein Nadzarin Wok Nordin JC had stated: [40] After a careful examination of Ong Kwong Yew & Ors (supra), I am thus of the view that as a matter of law, a liquidator’s remuneration based on the nature of a commission or percentage is only permissible and premised on the amount realised. [34] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant submits that the Defendants/Respondents are not permitted by the law to charge the additional fees to effect the transfer of the property to the Plaintiff/Applicant. This is because on the facts, the Additional Fees were unilaterally imposed on the Plaintiff, who is a bona fide purchaser of the Property, and calculated based off a percentage which was decided by the 2nd Defendant with no basis. It is hereby submitted that such imposition of the Additional Fees is unreasonable. [35] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant further submits that − • the Additional Fees are not amounts realized, nor did the Second and Third Defendants/Respondents presented any documents to prove that they have an agreement with the Committee of Inspection/Contributories/the Plaintiff with regards to the Additional Fees. • the Kuala Lumpur Court Order dated 19-7-2018 (Case No. WA-28PW-55-02/2018) does not confer any powers to the Second Defendant to charge the Additional Fees. Thus, it is submitted that the 2nd Defendant is strictly subject to the provisions of the Companies Act 2016 and Companies Winding Up Rules 1972. [36] Pertaining to the point about the bare trustee, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant submits that it is an established principle of law that upon full payment of a purchase price to a property in a property sale transaction, the First Defendant/vendor then becomes a bare trustee of the property. This is because it is not disputed that the Plaintiff had paid the full purchase price to the Property; the Plaintiff had obtained vacant possession of the Property; the Plaintiff has full beneficial rights to the Property; and the Plaintiff had executed the SPA for the Property. Consequentialy, the First Defendant is no longer the actual owner of the Property, and now that the First Defendant is wound up, the position of bare trustee now lies with the Second Defendant as the Liquidator. This follows that the Second and Third Defendants now cannot behave and/or deal with the Property or treat it as if the Property belongs to them. [37] To support its contentions, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant invites the attention of this Court to the Federal Court decisions in the cases of Karuppiah Chettiar v. Subramaniam [1971] 2 MLJ 116; Temenggong Securities Ltd & Anor v. Registrar Of Titles, Johore & Ors [1974] 2 MLJ 45 Samuel Naik Siang Ting v. Public Bank Bhd [2015] 8 CLJ 944. [38] In applying the principles in the cased, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant submits that once the Second and Third Defendants have stepped into the First Defendant’s shoes, being a bare trustee, they are not authorised by the law to deal with the Property other than to faciliate the transfer of the Property to the Plaintiff. The Second and Third Defendants are not permitted to further profit themselves from this transfer. [39] Having submitted all of the above, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant submits that it is safely assumed that the Defendants have no beneficial rights to the Property, and are duty bound by the law to affect the transfer of the Property to the Plaintiff with no additional fees. [40] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant submits that the Defendants’ had bad faith in imposing the Additional Fees were for them to conduct liquidation exercises and to verify the Plaintiff’s beneficial ownership. Further, it shows that the Second and Third Defendants/Respondents are clearly taking advantage of their position as Liquidators to hold the Plaintiff to a position where they are unable to exercise their rights unless they are able to profit from the transfer of the Property. In the Second and Third Defendants/Respondents’ Affidavit in Reply stated that the Plaintiff is the beneficial owner to the Property, but in paragraph 21 says that the Additional Fees are required in order for them to verify the Plaintiff’s beneficial ownership to the Property. This clearly shows an act of the Second and Third Defendants/Respondents in blowing hot and cold with their position. [41] The Judgment by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court the First Defendant/Respondent is owing the Judgment sums of RM198,005.10 to the Plaintiff/Applicant. Thus, the Second and Third Defendants/Respondents, despite having full knowledge of the Sessions Court Judgement, had acted in bad faith in imposing the Additional Fees on the Plaintiff just to effect the transfer of the Property and to unjustly enrich themselves. [42] In response to the Defendants’ counterclaim, the Plaintiff pleaded that the counterclaim is an abuse of Court’s process. The Defendants’ in its affidavits did not exhibit any receipts or invoice to substantiate their counterclaim against the Plaintiff for costs incurred by them in defending this Action and in addition, counterclaiming the Plaintiff. This Action, brought by way of an originating summons, will not proceed to trial, where counsel may examine the witnesses and documents on behalf of the parties, therefore it is of the utmost importance for parties to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate any claim brought before this Court. [43] I have read the written submissions by the learned counsel for the Defendants/Respondents as follows: