Chen Mian Kuang and Kian Seng Low for the Respondent [Messrs MK Cheng & Leong] LAIN-LAIN Kalaearasu and Sarah Chan for the Petitioner [Messrs SF Chan & Co]

Chen Mian Kuang and Kian Seng Low for the Respondent [Messrs MK Cheng & Leong] LAIN-LAIN Kalaearasu and Sarah Chan for the Petitioner [Messrs SF Chan & Co]

The 2nd Affidavit in Reply filed by the Petitioner was struck out for containing multiple conflicting versions and causing substantial injustice; the without prejudice letter of 30.4.2019 was excluded as it relates to a different statutory notice and is inadmissible; the statutory demand and remaining admissible material did not establish an undisputed debt because many invoices were disputed for lack of acknowledged delivery orders and should be litigated in a civil trial; accordingly the winding up petition failed and was dismissed with costs.

Citation
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-1290-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Ji Long Hardware Machinery Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Jeks Engineering Sdn Bhd
Court
WINDING UP
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 May 2021
Case Number
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-1290-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Without Prejudice Communications, Affidavit Filing and Service, Disputed Debt, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Evidence Winding Up Statutory Demand Without Prejudice Communications Affidavit Filing and Service +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ji Long Hardware Machinery Sdn Bhd

Petitioner

Jeks Engineering Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demand and supporting material proved an undisputed debt sufficient to sustain a winding up petition
  2. 2 Whether the Petitioner’s second affidavit in reply could be used given multiple conflicting versions and defective service
  3. 3 Admissibility and effect of a letter marked 'without prejudice' that refers to a different statutory notice and whether it constitutes admission of debt

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd Affidavit in Reply filed by the Petitioner was struck out for containing multiple conflicting versions and causing substantial injustice; the without prejudice letter of 30.4.2019 was excluded as it relates to a different statutory notice and is inadmissible; the statutory demand and remaining admissible material did not establish an undisputed debt because many invoices were disputed for lack of acknowledged delivery orders and should be litigated in a civil trial; accordingly the winding up petition failed and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Petitioner’s 2nd Affidavit in Reply struck out