Resorts World At Sentosa Pte Ltd v Seow Jenn Sheng (PA-29NCC-134-02/2025)

This is an appeal by the Judgment Creditor to the Judge in Chambers against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR") granting a stay of the bankruptcy proceedings filed against the Judgment Debtor.

On 13.12.2023, the Judgment Creditor commenced a civil suit against the Judgment Debtor in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore vide Case No. HC/OC 860/2023 ('the Singapore Suit') for a sum of S$403,112-00, being the outstanding amount under a Credit Facility Agreement entered into between the parties, together with interest and costs.

On 02.05.2024, the Judgment Creditor obtained a judgment in default of appearance against the Judgment Creditor in the Singapore Suit ("Singapore Judgment").

On 30.05.2024, the Judgment Creditor filed an application to register the Singapore Judgment in Malaysia pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ("REJA 1958") in Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Originating Summons No.: WA-24-57-05/2024 ("Registration Proceedings").

On 24.06.2024, Messrs. Amar Syiimir Izzat & Sham accordingly filed "Notis Pelantikan Peguamcara" in the Registration Proceedings as solicitors for the Judgment Debtor.

On 26.06.2024, the Singapore Judgment was duly registered as a judgment of the High Court of Malaya by an Order for Registration ("Registration Order"). The said Registration Order is exhibited as "SJS-2" in the Affidavit in Support of the Judgment Debtor (Enclosure 23).

On 15.10.2024, the Judgment Creditor served the Registration Order and a Notice to the Judgment Debtor of Registration of Foreign Judgment dated 11.10.2024 ("Notice of Registration") to Messrs. Aman Syiimir Izzat & Sham, solicitors for the Judgment Debtor and demanded payment of the principal judgment sum of RM1,409,964.84 together with interest thereon.

However, the Judgment Debtor failed to comply with the said demand within the prescribed period.

On 25.02.2025, the Judgment Creditor commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the Judgment Debtor at the Penang High Court vide PA-29NCC-134-02/2025, i.e. the bankruptcy proceedings before this Court.

On 25.06.2025, the Bankruptcy Notice was served on the Judgment Debtor by way of substituted service pursuant to an Order For Substituted Service dated 23.04.2025.

On 09.07.2025, the Judgement Debtor committed an act of bankruptcy owing to his failure to comply with the Bankruptcy Notice within the prescribed time frame.

On 15.07.2025, the Judgment Debtor filed an application in the Registration Proceedings to, inter alia, set aside the Registration Order ("said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC") which is fixed for hearing on 10.08.2026.

On 16.07.2025, the Judgment Debtor filed two (2) interlocutory applications before this court - (i) to stay the bankruptcy proceedings vide Enclosure 20 and (ii) to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice vide Enclosure 22.

On 05.12.2025, the learned SAR allowed the stay based on the reason that the Judgment Debtor had filed the said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC.

Aggrieved with the decision, the Judgment Creditor appealed to a judge in chambers, hence the appeal herein (Enclosure 47).

As it stands unless and until the Registration Order is set aside, it remains a valid and enforceable order of the court.

Accordingly, based on the said Registration Order, bankruptcy proceedings against the Judgment Debtor were duly filed by the Judgment Creditor.

Pursuant to s.97 of the Insolvency Act 1967 ("IA 1967"), the Judgment Debtor must show sufficient reasons in order to stay the bankruptcy proceedings.

In the appeal before this court, the alleged sufficient reason shown by the Judgment Debtor is the said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC which is fixed for hearing on 10.08.2026.

The question therefore is whether this amounts to a sufficient reason to justify a stay under s.97 of the IA 1967?

Solicitors for the Judgment Debtor submitted that the Judgment Creditor has failed, refused and/or neglected to serve the Registration Order dated 26.06.2024 and "Notice to Judgment Debtor on the Registration of Foreign Judgment" dated 11.10.2024 personally to the Judgment Debtor.

From the affidavit evidence adduced, the said Registration Order and "Notice to Judgment Debtor on the Registration of Foreign Judgment" were duly served by the Solicitors for the Judgment Creditor to the Judgment Debtor's Solicitors, namely, Messrs. Aman Syiimir Izzat & Sham vide letter dated 15.10.2024 which was duly acknowledged receipt on even date.

The said letter dated 15.10.2024 is exhibited as "S-2" in the Affidavit in Reply of the Judgment Creditor (Enclosure 25).

It is undisputed that Messrs. Aman Syiimir Izzat & Sham are the Solicitors on record for the Judgment Debtor in the Registration Proceedings as evidenced by the "Notis Pelantikan Peguamcara" dated 24.06.2024.

The said "Notis Pelantikan Peguamcara" is marked as exhibit "S-1" in the Affidavit in Reply of the Judgment Creditor (Enclosure 25).

Thus, the Judgment Debtor's argument that he was unaware of the receipt of the Registration Order and the "Notice to Judgment Debtor on the Registration of Foreign Judgment" by his Solicitors as he was not informed by them of same is devoid of merit.

Any lack of communication as alleged is between the Judgment Debtor and his Solicitors.

Furthermore, when served with the Registration Order and the "Notice to Judgment Debtor on the Registration of Foreign Judgment", Messrs. Aman Syiimir Izzat & Sham neither rejected nor returned the same to the Judgment Creditor's Solicitors.

Accordingly, the said Registration Order and "Notice to Judgment Debtor on the Registration of Foreign Judgment" were duly served on Judgment Debtor on 15.10.2024.

Pursuant to the Registration Order and by virtue of O.67 r.5 of the Rules of Court ("ROC 2012"), the Judgment Debtor has fourteen (14) days from the date of service to set aside the Registration Order should he wish to do so.

In other words, pursuant to O.67 r.9 of the ROC 2012, the Judgment Debtor has to file an application to set aside the Registration Order on or before 30.10.2024.

It is undisputed that the application to set aside the Registration Order was only filed by the Judgment Debtor on 15.07.2025.

A perusal of the chronology of events reveal that the Judgment Debtor did not file the said application to set aside the Registration Order up until the Bankruptcy Notice filed on 25.02.2025 was served on the Judgment Debtor by way of substituted service on 25.06.2025.

In other words, from the date of service of the Registration Order and the "Notice to Judgment Debtor on the Registration of Foreign Judgment", the Judgment Debtor did not take any steps to set aside the said Registration Order.

Between the period of 15.10.2024 to 15.07.2024, i.e. nine (9) months to be exact, the Judgment Debtor only folded his arms and did nothing.

It therefore shows had there been no bankruptcy proceedings filed against him by the Judgment Creditor, the Judgment Debtor would continue to keep silent and sit on his rights notwithstanding he was fully aware of the existence of the Registration Order and the "Notice to Judgment Debtor on the Registration of Foreign Judgment".

This certainly should not be the case, for any aggrieved party (in this case the Judgment Debtor) should and ought to have applied to set aside the Registration Order soonest possible within the time frame given to do so, instead of adopting a "look and see" or lackadaisical approach.

Thus, by only filing the application to set aside the Registration Order after nine (9) long months from date or service of same followed by an application to stay the bankruptcy proceedings by reason of the said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC is clearly an attempt and tactic to delay the bankruptcy proceedings and an abuse of the process of court.

Although the learned SAR agreed with the Judgment Creditor that until and unless the Registration Order is set aside, it is still a valid and enforceable order, he nonetheless failed to see the delay in filing the said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC by the Judgment Debtor.

The learned SAR also failed to see the glaring and obvious tactic to delay the bankruptcy proceedings and abuse of court process from the late filing of the said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC.

Instead, the learned SAR proceeded to balance the prejudice and / or irreparable damage suffered by each party should the stay be refused, while remaining oblivious to the prejudice already caused to the Judgment Creditor by the Judgment Debtor's delay in not filing the said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC at the earliest opportunity.

Hence, to the question whether the said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC amounts to a sufficient reason to justify a stay under s.97 of the IA 1967, the answer is a resounding no.

The submissions by both parties are premised mainly on the issue whether the Singapore Judgment which has been duly registered under REJA 1958 is enforceable in Malaysia.

Thus, references to various cases inclusive that of the Federal Court case of Dato' Ting Ching Lee v Ting Siu Hua [2025] 4 CLJ 1 were made in support of the argument whether judgments which arose from gambling activities and their transactions are enforceable in Malaysia.

However, it is the finding of this court that such submissions should and ought to be addressed in the said Setting Aside Application @ KLHC.

Accordingly, this appeal is not the proper forum to discuss and decide on the same for they are matters clearly to be dealt with by the KLHC.

Based on the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs of RM5,000-00 subject to allocator fees. Counsel(s): Ms. Jasmine Kuan Jie Min from Messrs Skrine for the Creditor. Mr. Tan Jia Jing from Messrs. Chan Eng & Co. for the Debtor. Case(s) referred to: Dato' Ting Ching Lee v Ting Siu Hua [2025] 4 CLJ 1.