PEMPETISYEN Clinton Tan Kian Seng and Rachel Now (Pupil in Chambers) for the Petitioner [Messrs Clinton Tan] Lauren Loh Chang Woo, Nurul Hafeeza binti Mohd Zaidi and Danial Irfan bin Roslan for the Respondent [Messrs C W Loh & Associates]

PEMPETISYEN Clinton Tan Kian Seng and Rachel Now (Pupil in Chambers) for the Petitioner [Messrs Clinton Tan] Lauren Loh Chang Woo, Nurul Hafeeza binti Mohd Zaidi and Danial Irfan bin Roslan for the Respondent [Messrs C W Loh & Associates]

Court held on balance of probabilities that respondent failed to establish a bona fide substantial dispute over the claimed debt, the arbitration clause was permissive not obligatory, the s466 notice had been acknowledged, communications supported admission of debt, and respondent's financial statements demonstrated commercial insolvency; therefore the winding up petition was justified and costs awarded.

Citation
COMPANIES WINDING UP PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-477-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PETITIONER: Kien Safety Glass Sdn Bhd; RESPONDENT: Singyes Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 February 2022
Case Number
COMPANIES WINDING UP PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-477-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Winding up petition granted
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Inability to Pay Debts, Demand and Notice Under Companies Act S466, Dispute as to Debt, Solvency Test, Latent Defects, Sale of Goods
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Law Contract Law Arbitration Commercial Law Winding Up Inability to Pay Debts Demand and Notice Under Companies Act S466 +4 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kien Safety Glass Sdn Bhd

PETITIONER

Singyes Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

RESPONDENT

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a bona fide substantial dispute on the debt claimed
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration clause in the Purchase Order is mandatory
  3. 3 Whether the statutory notice under section 466 was valid and acknowledged

Ratio Decidendi

Court held on balance of probabilities that respondent failed to establish a bona fide substantial dispute over the claimed debt, the arbitration clause was permissive not obligatory, the s466 notice had been acknowledged, communications supported admission of debt, and respondent's financial statements demonstrated commercial insolvency; therefore the winding up petition was justified and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Winding up petition granted

Orders

  • Petition granted in terms of the petition; costs of MYR 10,000 to be paid from the assets of the Respondent as per paragraph 19(a),(b) and (c) of the petition