Cimb Bank Berhad v Thiyagarajan A/L Mpl Yegappan (KA-24NCvC-94-03/2025)

The Plaintiff is a licensed financial institution. The Defendant was the director and shareholder of Hosba Valley Resort Sdn Bhd (“HVRSB”) and guarantor of the loans given by the Plaintiff to HVRSB in the sum of RM12,500,000.00 vide Loan Agreements in 1995 and 1996 (“Loans”).

A piece of land, namely, all that piece of land held under HS(D) 504/95 No PT 1137, Mukim Hosba, Daerah Kubang Pasu, State of Kedah Darul Aman (“the Land”) owned by HVRSB was charged to the Plaintiff as security for the Loans and was duly forfeited by the Plaintiff via Order for Sale dated 10.1.2000 in Originating Summons No. 24-1441-1999 (“Foreclosure Suit”).

HVSRB was later wound up by the Court on 26.9.2012 and a liquidator (Dato’ Robert Teo Keng Tuan) was duly appointed on 11.11.2015 (“Liquidator”).

The Defendant was declared a bankrupt on 4.7.2013 and presently retains the status of an undischarged bankrupt. Proof of Debt was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the sum of RM29,441,308.41 with the Official Receiver on 6.4.2016.

The outstanding debt under the Loans has not been paid by HVRSB or the Defendant.

Meanwhile the Plaintiff has not been able to auction off or dispose of the Land due to the Defendant’s action of, inter alia, challenging the sale of the Land via various court filings and applications.

The Defendant had instituted various legal proceedings in Court against the Plaintiff and/or the Liquidator namely; Originating Summons KA-24NCvC-341-08/2021, Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-358-09/2021 and Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-543-11/2024.

The 341 and 358 suits were struck out by the High Court due to the Defendant’s failure to obtain the sanction from the Director General of Insolvency before commencing the suits.

Two caveats on the Land filed by the Defendant and his wife, Meenachi a/p S.N.K Narayanan were ordered to be removed via Court Order on 13.10.2021 obtained by the Plaintiff through Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-171-04/2021 and KA-24NCvC-172-04/2021.

The Defendant had also filed various applications in the Foreclosure Suit, inter alia, an injunction application to prohibit the Plaintiff from selling the Land other than by way of a public auction and a declaration application to declare that the Land contain restriction in interest.

Consequently, due to the Plaintiff’s inability to sell the Land, substantial amounts in quit rent have been incurred by the Plaintiff. Potential buyers of the Land are hesitant to proceed further due to the numerous legal disputes. The Plaintiff then filed this Suit (“this OS”) in this Court.

Through this OS, the Plaintiff claims for the following relief: “(A) That an interim stay of the proceedings in Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-543-11/2024 be granted only against the Plaintiff until the disposal of this Suit;

(B) That the Defendant be declared as a vexatious litigant in respect of all matters directly, indirectly and/or incidental to the piece of land held under Title No. HSD 504/95 Lot No. PT 1137, Mukim Hosba, Daerah Kubang Past, Kedah (“Land”), and the exercise of the Plaintiff’s rights as a lawful charge in respect of the said Land;

(C) An order that the Defendant be restrained from instituting any legal proceedings in any Court against the Plaintiff and/or the Liquidator, in respect of all matters directly, indirectly and/or incidental to the said Land, without first obtaining the prior leave of the High Court;

(D) Consequently, if Prayers (B) and (C) above are granted, an order be granted for the Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC- 543-11/2024 to be struck out against the Plaintiff and the

(E) That any application for leave pursuant to Prayer (C) above must not be made ex-parte and must be served on the Plaintiff at least 14 days prior to the date of the hearing;

(F) That any Suit and/or application filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff and/or the Liquidator relating to the Land in anyway whatsoever, without obtaining the prior leave of the High Court pursuant to paragraph (C) above, is to be forthwith struck out by the Court, without the need for a striking out application to be filed into Court;

(G) That a copy of this Order is to be published in the Gazette;

(H) The Order made herein do carry the prescribed endorsement pursuant to Order 45 rule 7(4) and Form 83 of the

(I) That the Plaintiff be granted liberty to apply for any consequential orders. Submission by the Parties 13. The Plaintiff submits that pursuant to the discontinue of the Foreclosure Suit by mutual consent of the parties on 2.11.2020, the Plaintiff is entitled to dispose of the Land by any other means except public auction; including sale by private treaty.

The Plaintiff avers that it is exercising its rights as the chargee of the Land and creditor of HVRSB and the Defendant to sell the Land. However, the Defendant has been continuously filing various applications, suits and appeal to prevent the Plaintiff and/or the Liquidator from selling the Land. The Plaintiff contends that this constitutes a clear manifestation of a vexatious litigant.

The Plaintiff asserts that these litigation suits are not genuine attempts to vindicate any legitimate rights but are calculated, repetitive and abusive in nature to impede the Plaintiff rights to sell the Land.

The Plaintiff also argues that the clear example of indiscriminate joinder of parties which includes inter alia, “Kerajaan Malaysia, Menteri Undang-undang & Reformasi Institusi Kerajaan Malaysia, Ketua Hakim Negara, Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi, Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kedah, Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Kedah, Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Kedah, Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kedah, Yang Dipertua Majlis Daerah Kubang Pasu, Pentadbir Tanah Kubang Pasu, Pengarah Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan Negeri Kedah” named as defendants in the Defendant suits highlights the Defendant’s vexatious nature not to pursue a legitimate claim but to prolong, delay and frustrate the Plaintiff’s rights as a secured creditor.

To support the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant is behaving as a vexatious litigant, the Plaintiff quotes Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Hardial Singh Sekhon v PP [2009] 5 CLJ 101 that: “the appellant is a declared and gazette vexatious litigant. He brought an election petition against the former Prime Minister and others claiming relief. The appellant did not obtain leave to bring the petition. Hence the petition was obviously unsustainable and was dismissed out of hand.” [Emphasis added]

Furthermore, the Plaintiff avers that the Defendant fulfills the three limbs’ criteria laid down in the Court of Appeal case of Tan Boon Huat v Tan Boon Lee [2017] CLJU 406 where it was held: “Unquestionably, vexatious litigation also includes continuing a lawsuit after the discovery of facts shows it has absolutely no merit. [25] … The provisions in paragraph 17, clearly reveals and envisages 3 important limbs that must be fulfilled before the additional powers of the High Court can be invoked and these are-i. there must be a habitual and persistent legal proceeding filed in court; ii. the legal proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause; and iii. the legal proceedings were vexatious.” [Emphasis added]

The second limb is illustrated by the Defendant’s failure to obtain the sanction of the Director General of Insolvency, as required under Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act before instituting any legal suits.

In opposing this application, the Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff had actually behaved in a vexatious manner by proceeding with the bankruptcy proceedings of the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant submits that the Plaintiff’s insistence to proceed with an auction below the reserve price of RM34,000,000.00 ordered by the Alor Setar High Court is a vital feature that demonstrates the Plaintiff's vexatious conduct.

The Defendant also avers that the issue concerning the requirement of a sanction of the DGI to institute legal suits is currently being appealed at the Court of Appeal in the Originating Summons case No. KA24-NCvC-543-11/2024.

After a full deliberation and having appraised the facts adduced by both parties through their affidavits and the exhibits, and after considering the submissions by the learned counsels for the Plaintiff and the Defendant, upon the balance of probabilities, this Court concurs with the Plaintiff’s submissions and hereby declares the Defendant a vexatious litigant in respect of all matters concerning the Land. My decision is based on the following reasons.

This Court is vested with the powers to declare a litigant as a vexatious litigant pursuant to Section 25 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and read together with paragraph 17 of the Schedule. In particular, Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the CJA 1964 says, “Power to restrain any person who has habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexations legal proceedings in any court, whether against the same or different persons, from instituting any legal proceedings in any court save by leave of a Judge. A copy of any such order shall be published in the Gazette.” [Emphasis added]

The purpose of the enacted Paragraph 17 was given by Mary Lim JCA (as she then was) in the case of Lee Heng Moy & Ors v Pacific Trustees Bhd & Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 368 at [16]: “[16] The object and intent behind para. 17 is to prevent the abuse of the process of court by persons who “habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings in any court, whether against the same or different person”. If left unchecked, these habitual and persistent institutions of legal proceedings by such persons which are furthermore without reasonable cause, are more than likely to undermine and stultify the proper administration of justice. Valuable time and resources of the court, the legal practitioners and the members of the public who have affected will be substantially wasted on attending to such legal proceedings.” [Emphasis added]

The Court of Appeal case of Sim Kooi Soon v Malaysia Airlines System (No. 2) [2010] 9 CLJ 936 provides the detailed authority to declare a litigant vexatious. In that case the Court of Appeal explicitly advised the appellant to appeal to the Federal Court after his claim for a reinstatement as a pilot of the respondent was dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal. After 10 review applications with minute differences but ultimately seeking the same remedy, the Court of Appeal finally laid down the test to declare a vexatious litigant: “What is the hallmark of a vexatious litigant? The claimant who sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, is termed as a vexatious litigant. And a vexatious proceeding is one where the vexatious litigant had little or no basis in law and its effect was to subject the opposing party to inconvenience.” [Emphasis added]

To supplement the analysis of vexatious litigation, the Plaintiff cites numerous other cases. Of them, I find the following cases of relevant to the present case: a) Perak Industrial Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Tan Boon Lee [2015] 6 CLJ 396: This case, referenced in relation to Sim Kooi Soon, further elaborates on what constitutes a vexatious proceeding, emphasizing proceedings with little or no basis in law, initiated to cause inconvenience, harassment, and expense, and involving an abuse of court process for an improper purpose. b) Ching Suet Yeen v Mageswaran Rajangom & Ors [2025] CLJU 291: This case illustrates a situation where numerous suits were filed against a former husband and individuals connected to him, with repetitive claims of the defendants causing the separation, highlighting a pattern of relitigating the same issues. The defendants included not only the former husband but also a chartered accountant firm, a company, and even a religious association. c) American Express (M) Sdn Bhd v. Matthias Chang Wen Chieh [2012] 5 CLJ 794: This case exemplifies vexatious conduct through a defendant's repeated attempts to challenge a summary judgment obtained by the plaintiff for a defaulted loan facility. The defendant pursued appeals, applications to set aside the judgment, and challenges to a bankruptcy notice, all of which were ultimately dismissed. The defendant even filed a fresh suit on the same matter, which was struck out. d) Chellappa A/L K. Kalimuthu v Nagaraju A/L Merganathan Dan Lain-Lain [2018] CLJU 1062: This case concerned a dispute over the possession and management of a temple. Despite a consent judgment and court decision ruling the defendants as unlawful possessors, they repeatedly attempted to set aside the court's decision. The plaintiff then sought a declaration that the defendants were vexatious litigants, which was granted, noting the lack of any remaining right over the temple and the possibility of further similar proceedings. e) Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah v Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow [2025] CLJU 1035: In this recent case, the court declared the defendant a vexatious litigant due to his continued pursuit of a cause of action that had already been conclusively determined. The court applied the test from Attorney General v. Barker, focusing on whether the litigant habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds, necessitating an order to prevent further abuse. f) Malayan Banking Berhad v Tan Bon Kiat [2021] CLJU 376: The High Court issued a vexatious litigant order against a defendant who persistently filed numerous applications and appeals of a similar nature, often with only minor variations, related to a bankruptcy order. These actions included applications for annulment, stay, and recusal of a judge. The court emphasized that these numerous applications, similar in nature and with minor variations, consumed substantial judicial time and clogged the court dockets, amounting to an abuse of process. g) Petronas Refinery And Petrochemical Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor v Lim Jen Lin @ Lim Jen Ling [2024] CLJU 2047: The court allowed the OS for vexatious litigant, noting that the Defendant had initiated seven proceedings arising from and/or related to the very same subject matter against the Plaintiffs. The court found it undisputed that the Defendant had abused the legal process as a tool to embarrass, humiliate, and insult the Plaintiffs with her frivolous and/or vexatious claims, which, if unrestrained, would continue to aggravate. and h) SKS Foam (M) Sdn Bhd v SKS Integrated Group Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1484: The Court found that the Defendant had, for nearly a decade, persistently resisted the liquidator's statutory efforts to recover possession of a property pursuant to a vesting order. Even after multiple applications being dismissed, the Defendant continued to file further applications including repeated attempts to set aside the vesting order and fresh actions premised on issues already finally determined. The Court held that such conduct amounted to a "sustained and deliberate pattern of vexatious litigation," where repeated applications and appeals were weaponized to obstruct the liquidation process.

The sheer volume and repetitive nature of the filings by the Defendant in relation or incidental to the Plaintiff’s rights as a chargee over the Land which impedes the Plaintiff’s exercise to sell the Land constitute the vital element upon which this Court bases its decision ultimately in favour of the Plaintiff.

As submitted by the Plaintiff, this Court notes that the following are the numerous actions filed by the Defendant and his wife throughout the years to hinder the Plaintiff from exercising its rights as a charge to the Land:-

Applications filed by the Defendant in the Foreclosure Suit No Application Summary of the reliefs sought

Injunction Application To prohibit the Plaintiff from selling the Land other than by way of a public auction Discontinued via

Declaration Application To declare that the title of the Land purportedly contain restriction in interest and was endorsed with a wrong category of land use Discontinued via

Caveats filed by the Defendant and his wife on the Land No Caveat Lodgment Date Caveator Outcome 1.

2.

27.8.2019

22.9.2019 Defendant The Plaintiff filed 2 Originating Summons against the Defendant and Meenachi to remove Defendant’s wife, Ms. Meenachi a/p S.N.K. Narayanan the unlawful private caveats on the said Land. These Originating Summons were filed via Suit No. KA-24NCVC- 172-04/2021 and Sui No. KA-24NCvC-171- 04/2021, as the Defendant and Meenachi had refused to withdraw the private caveats voluntarily, despite the Plaintiff’s request for them to do so, as they have no caveatable interest in the Land. The Learned High Court Judge allowed the caveat removal Suit and ordered the caveats to be removed.

New Suits / Appeals filed by the Defendants Suit Defendant(s) Reliefs Sought Outcome / Status 1. C-341- 08/202 1 Plaintiff and 9 other Defendant’s The reliefs sought were identical to the reliefs sought in the Declaration Application, which was discontinued by the Defendant via a Consent Order. The Learned High Court Judge allowed the Plaintiff’s preliminary objection premised on the Defendant’s failure to obtain the prior sanction of the DGI pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 before commencing the Suit and struck out the August 2021 Suit without any order of costs via ZOOM proceeding on 16.8.2022.

C-358- 09/202 1 Plaintiff, the Liquidator, and the DGI Compensation in the sum of RM30,000,000.0 0 purportedly on the ground that the Plaintiff, the Liquidator and the Insolvency Department of Malaysia had failed to effect an auction via the Order for Sale. This impugned declaratory relief is completely vexatious, ludicrous, and baseless, as it was the Defendant himself who had The Learned High Court Judge allowed the Plaintiff’s preliminary objection and stuck out the September 2021 Suit without any order of costs, via an email dated 30.11.2021. voluntarily agreed to discontinue the Foreclosure Suit on 2.11.2020, as evidenced by the Consent Orders. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled to dispose of the Land in any manner permissible under the law, including but not limited to a sale by tender or private treaty by the Liquidator. The Defendant also replicated in the September 2021 Suit, the same reliefs as prayed for in the Defendant’s Injunction Application that had been voluntarily struck off following the Consent Orders entered into by the Defendant in the Foreclosure Suit.

29PB- 07/202 1 (“1st Annul ment Applic ation”) Plaintiff was not served with the cause papers for the 1st Annulment Application Order to annul the AORO against him The Learned Senior Assistant Registrar dismissed the

29PB- 09/202 3 (“2nd Annul ment Applic ation”) Plaintiff was served with the 2nd Annulment Application as a creditor and had opposed the same Order to annul the AORO against him The Learned Senior Assistant Registrar dismissed the 2nd Annulment Application on 27.6.2024 5. Appeal to the High Court against the dismiss al of the 2nd Annulm ent Plaintiff and other creditors Order to annul the AORO against him The Annulment Appeal was dismissed by the High Court Judge on 19.5.2025 with cost of RM2,000.00 awarded to each of CIMB, Ambank, and the Director General of Insolvency. Applicat ion (“Annu lment Appeal ”)

C-543- 11/202 4 (“Nove mber 2024 Suit”) Plaintiff and 8 other Defendants namely:

Setiausaha Kerajaan

(ii) Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kedah

(iii) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Insolvensi

(iv) Pengarah Tanah Dan Defendant sought for various impugned reliefs, including a declaration that the Land should only be sold by way of public auction, which is an impugned relief, as the Alor Setar High Court Foreclosure Suit 24-1441- 1999 which mandates the On 17.3.2025, the Learned High Court Judge allowed the preliminary objections filed by the Liquidator (10th Defendant in the November 2024 Suit), and Yang Dipertua Majlis Daerah Kubang Pasu (5th Defendant in the November 2024 Suit) and struck out the November Galian Negeri Kedah

Yang Dipertua

(vi) Pentadbir Tanah Kubang Pasu

(vii) Pendaftar Tanah, Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Kedah

(viii) Pengarah Jabatan Ukur Dan Pemetaan Negeri Kedah Darul Aman sale of the Land by public auction had been struck out with consent of parties on 2.11.2020. Thus, there is no public auction required to be conducted for the Land to be sold. 2024 Suit filed by the Defendant due to failure to obtain the prior sanction of the DGI despite the Defendant’s status as an undischarged bankrupt.

K- 01(IM)( NCVC)- 04/202 5 Plaintiff and 9 others Defendants as named in the earlier Suit As above This Appeal is currently fixed for case management before the Court of Appeal.

23NCv C-133- 04/202 5 Plaintiff The Defendant filed this Suit as a counteraction against the Plaintiff’s OS to declare him as a vexatious litigant. Via this impugned Suit, the Defendant seeks to obtain, among others, a stay of the vexatious litigant Suit pending the disposal of this This Suit is ongoing in another high court of Alor Setar Suit and a restraining Order to restrain the Plaintiff from “defaming” and “harassing” him and from disposing of the Land.

K- 03(IM)- 06/202 5 Plaintiff and other creditors Order to annul the AORO against the Defendant This Appeal is currently fixed for case management before the Court of Appeal.

C-165- 06/202 5 Plaintiff as the 9th Defendant along with 6 other Defendants, namely:

Kerajaan Malaysia The Defendant is seeking for, among others, an order that Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 does The Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Preliminary objection (“PO”) dated 5.8.2025 in the June Suit, as it was also filed illegally without the

(ii) Menteri Undang-Undang & Reformasi Institut Kerajaan Malaysia

(iii) Ketua Hakim Negara Malaysia

(iv) Ketua pengarah Insolvensi Malaysia

Liquidator

(vi) Pendaftar Hamilik, Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kedah not apply against him. prior written sanction of the DGI in breach of Section 38(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967; The Suit is on-going in another high court of Alor Setar

C-217- 07/202 5 1) Plaintiff 2)DGI 3)Liquidator A declaration, among others that, the DGI, the Plaintiff as well as the Liquidator have purportedly breached their fiduciary duties awed to Defendant. The Suit is still ongoing in another high court of Alor

Besides, the fact that no prior sanction of the Director General of Insolvency was obtained before the filing of all these actions as required under Section 38(1) of the Insolvency Act further weighs heavily against the Defendant's assertion that he is not a vexatious litigant. Sections 38 states:

Where a bankrupt has not obtained his discharge-

the bankrupt shall be incompetent to maintain any action (other than an action for damages in respect of an injury to his person) without the previous sanction of the Director General of Insolvency;

This conduct by the Defendant in filing actions without sanction exemplifies the blatant disregard for the mandatory procedural requirement of a vexatious litigant.

The Defendant in his defense, argues that Section 38(1) of the Insolvency Act is archaic and thus the excuse of naming the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of Malaysia in one of the suits. However, for the purpose of this OS, this Court finds that the argument regarding Insolvency Act is for another forum. It does not have any bearing or probative value in this declaration of a vexatious litigant application.

The Defendant may rightly have a legitimate grievance regarding the requirement of sanction of the Director General of Insolvency. Nevertheless, to convolute this vexatious litigant application with his current predicament as an undischarged bankrupt is akin to misconstruing the legal issue at hand and misdirecting the Court's focus from the necessary statutory analysis.

To my mind, the best case to apply the principle concerning this type of application to declare a particular person a vexatious litigant is perhaps as laid down in the Court of Appeal case of Tan Boon Huat v Tan Boon Lee (supra).

As analysed by the Plaintiff, to which I agree, all the requirements listed in Tan Boon Huat v Tan Boon Lee (supra) are clearly satisfied in the present case:

The Defendant has habitually and persistently filed legal proceedings in Court;

The suits filed by the Defendant were instituted without the prior sanction of the Director General of Insolvency, as mandated under Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967; and

These litigations are frivolous, devoid of merit, and amount to no more than baseless attempts to obtain impugned and unsustainable reliefs solely intended to obstruct the Plaintiff, as the lawful chargee, from exercising its right to sell the Land.

Hence, in view that the three limbs listed in Tan Boon Huat v Tan Boon Lee (supra) are satisfied particularly the failure to obtain sanction from DGI, this Court concurs with the Plaintiff’s claim and grants the second prayer sought: that the Defendant is declared a vexatious litigant in respect of the Land. However, this declaration does not impede the Defendant’s rights in other matters. For clarity, regarding all issues involving the Land, no further application can be filed by the Defendant without obtaining prior leave of the Court.

Additionally, except for prayer (A) which has become academic, I allow prayer (B) until (I) sought by the Plaintiff in this OS. Dated: 2nd November 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------- DR. JOHN LEE KIEN HOW @ MOHD JOHAN LEE JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA ALOR SETAR Solicitor For The Plaintiff : Nur Ainnabila Rosdi Messrs. Firoz Julian Advocates And Solicitors Defendant (Represented himself) : Thiyagarajan A/L MPL Yegappan Table of Authorities Cases American Express (M) Sdn Bhd v. Matthias Chang Wen Chieh [2012] 5 CLJ 794 Chellappa A/L K. Kalimuthu v Nagaraju A/L Merganathan Dan Lain-Lain [2018] CLJU 1062 Ching Suet Yeen v Mageswaran Rajangom & Ors [2025] CLJU 291 Hardial Singh Sekhon v PP [2009] 5 CLJ 101 Lee Heng Moy & Ors v Pacific Trustees Bhd & Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 368 Sim Kooi Soon v Malaysia Airlines System (No. 2) [2010] 9 CLJ 936 Malayan Banking Berhad v Tan Bon Kiat [2021] CLJU 376 Perak Industrial Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Tan Boon Lee [2015] 6 CLJ 396 Petronas Refinery And Petrochemical Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor v Lim Jen Lin @ Lim Jen Ling [2024] CLJU 2047 SKS Foam (M) Sdn Bhd v SKS Integrated Group Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1484 Tan Boon Huat v Tan Boon Lee [2017] CLJU 406 Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah v Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow [2025] CLJU 1035 Statues Section 25, Courts of Judicature Act 1964 Paragraph 17, the Schedule, Courts of Judicature Act 1964 Section 38(1), Insolvency Act