the appointment of Mr Lim San Peen would incur cost of air travel to/from Kuala Lumpur and Sarawak as well as accommodation for him and his supporting team of professionals, when conducting meetings or when attending to affairs related to the liquidation. [5] The last Audited Financial Statement for financial year ended 30.6.2012 lodged with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (“CCM”) shows that the 4 total fixed assets of the Respondent have a book value of only 170,560.00. The Respondent has no real property and has insignificant moveable fixed assets and given that the Respondent has ceased trading since 2014 after the logging agreements with the Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation (“STIDC”) expired. Based on the same Audited Financial Statement, the Respondent has accumulated losses of RM6,370,789.00 and the total liabilities exceed the total assets by RM6,270,789.00. The cash and bank balances stands at RM65,628.00 as at 30.6.2012. Even if the Respondent recovers all debts from its debtors, it will not have enough to repay its creditors. In the circumstances, I find that the cost of liquidation ought to keep to a minimum. I agree with submissions of counsel for WKY that there is no commercial nor logical justification to increase the cost of liquidation by appointing Mr Lim San Peen from Kuala Lumpur, which would be costlier. I find it more logical and reasonable to appoint Mr Wong Ching Yong from Sibu, a local man who is equally experienced and qualified to carry out the liquidation at a lower cost. This would be in the best interest of the creditors and contributories of the Respondent as the cost of liquidation would be far less and there would be more funds available for distribution to creditors. [6] Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Mr Lim San Peen comes from PWC, a reputable and established firm with the necessary resources to 5 handle the liquidation more efficiently. And this regard, learned counsel has brought the attention of the court to Mr Lim San Peen’s appointment as liquidator for 10 other companies where the parties are also involved in. Thus, counsel argues that it would be desirable from the point of view of ease of administration and expense that Mr Lim San Peen be appointed as the liquidator of the Respondent. I do not find any merit in this argument. I find that both Mr Lin San Peen and Mr Wong Ching Yong are equally qualified and experienced to carry out the liquidation of the Respondent. Further, this is not a case of liquidation of a group of related companies, that would warrant the appointment of a common liquidator. Though the Respondent’s shareholders may be also be shareholders in the other 10 companies in liquidation, the Respondent is a stand alone company. There is no evidence showing any linkages between the Respondent and the other 10 companies where Mr Lim San Peen is the liquidator. Thus, there are no discernable advantages to be gained from appointing the same liquidator for the Respondent company. In fact in another case involving Petitioner in the Sibu High Court, similar issue relating to the appointment of a liquidator for 6 companies that were ordered to be wound up the learned judge had this to say: On the issue of the appointment of the liquidator, to my mind where they are 2 equally qualified and competent liquidators, it makes no sense to appoint the liquidator that is based at a distance for instance based in West Malaysia. The 6 benefit of appointing a locally based liquidator is obvious: it will save costs for all parties. As for the point raised by the contributories with regard the conduct of Mr Lim San Peen I will not pass judgment on the merits of the issue except to say that there is much unhappiness on the part of the contributories. And this is not conducive to the efficient carrying out of the duties of a liquidator. So in the exercise of my discretion I will appoint Mr Wong Ching Yong to be the liquidator for all 6 companies. [7] Learned counsel for WKY also raised the issue of Mr Lim San Peen’s alleged impartially in the present proceedings, just as it was raised in the matter before the Sibu High Court. I am of the view that the issue of the alleged impartiality of Mr Lim San Peen relates to the liquidation of a company called Artic Star Sdn Bhd and it would only be proper for a complaint be raised before the appropriate winding-up court. And for similar reasons espoused by the learned judge in the Sibu High Court case, I too do not wish to address the alleged impartial and questionable conduct of Mr Lim San Peen as liquidator. That belongs in another forum. [8] As for the learned judge’s reasoning on the cost aspect of the appointment of a liquidator, I wholly adopt and apply the reasoning espoused therein that it does not make any sense for a more expensive liquidator from afar to be appointed when an equally competent and qualified local liquidator is available at less cost. 7 Wherefore, I ordered that Mr Wong Ching Yong of Messrs Wong Ching Yong & Co, Sibu, Sarawak, be appointed the liquidator of the Respondent following the winding up of the Respondent as agreed by parties. Dated this 3rd day of September 2018. Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera Judge High Court in Malaya Shah Alam.