Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cipaa adjudication

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

KAYANGAN KEMAS SDN BHD 1. ) EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) AMBANK (M) BERHAD

Citation

WA-24NCC-57-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-57-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the AP Bond demand was not unconscionable because it secures repayment of an outstanding un-recouped advance of RM15,443,670.67 and there was no real dispute that liability to repay existed; however, the Performance Bond demand was unconscionable given the high level of securitisation already enjoyed by the 1st Defendant (retention sums, disputed back charges and under-certifications), the timing and apparent inflation of the counterclaim shortly after the Plaintiff's arbitration claim, and minimal real risk of loss to justify a call on the RM33,000,000 performance bond; a…
24 Apr 2026

ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD 1. ) IRDK VENTURES SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 2. ) TAN SRI DATO SRI DR. RAMASAMY A/L MUTHUSAMY 3. ) PUAN SRI DATIN SRI DR INDRA GHANDI A/P ELAYAPPAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-39-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-39-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts the court found that D2 was the directing mind of D1 and that a concerted pattern of wrongful termination, non-payment, delays and dissipation of SPA proceeds was established; plaintiff's cause of action was postponed by discoverability of fraudulent dissipation until 17-6-2016 so the claim was within limitation; estoppel by election did not bar the conspiracy claim; the corporate veil was disregarded to hold D2 jointly and severally liable; compensatory relief equals the proof of debt sum accepted by the liquidator, exemplary damages of RM500,000 were awarded to punish D2, plus…
18 Dec 2025

PEMPETISYEN GEO HILL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PESAT BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) LEONG POH HONG 2. ) JUN YIN CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) GEO METAL SDN BHD 4. ) Rangkai Bintang (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because CIPAA adjudication decisions are binding and indisputable for winding‑up purposes (per Bludream), and the respondent failed to pay the undisputed sum demanded in the statutory demand, the petitioner was entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding‑up order; therefore the winding‑up petition is granted and the opposing creditors' application to stay/dismiss is dismissed as academic.
21 Nov 2025

PEMPETISYEN GEO HILL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PESAT BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) LEONG POH HONG 2. ) JUN YIN CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) GEO METAL SDN BHD 4. ) Rangkai Bintang (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the petition was founded on CIPAA adjudication decisions which are treated as indisputable under binding Court of Appeal authority, the outstanding sum is not disputable in winding up proceedings and the petitioner is therefore entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding up order; the stay application is dismissed.
21 Nov 2025

PEMPETISYEN GEO HILL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PESAT BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) LEONG POH HONG 2. ) JUN YIN CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) GEO METAL SDN BHD 4. ) Rangkai Bintang (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the petition was founded on CIPAA adjudication decisions which are, as a matter of precedent, indisputable for winding up purposes, the petitioner was entitled to a winding up order and the application for a stay was properly dismissed.
27 Oct 2025

Pembinaan BY Sdn. Bhd. Minda Muhibah Sdn. bhd. PENCELAH China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28JM-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

China State, as an unsecured creditor, had locus to intervene. The Applicant failed to discharge the burden under s.405(1)(b) CA 2016 to show that a judicial management order was likely to achieve the survival of the company because there was no credible evidence of sufficient financing or a real prospect of rehabilitation; accordingly the JMA (Encl 1) was dismissed. Leave nunc pro tunc was granted to China State to validate its winding-up petition filed during the moratorium due to lack of knowledge of the moratorium at time of filing and prejudice if leave refused.
27 Oct 2025

SIGNATURE CABINET SDN BHD 1. ) LIM KENG HENG 2. ) MOHAMED IZHAM BIN HAMZAH 3. ) ALIGAN DESIGN SDN BHD 4. ) ALIGAN HOLDINGS SDN BHD 5. ) TULUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 6. ) JAYA PRAKASH A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

WA-22NCvC-498-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-498-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike‑out application was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious from the pleadings and affidavits that the plaintiff’s fraud claim against the Fifth Defendant was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process; disputed, material facts (including whether the Fifth Defendant was complicit) require trial evidence and cannot be resolved summarily under Order 18 r19.
13 Oct 2025

Pembinaan BY Sdn. Bhd. Minda Muhibah Sdn. bhd. PENCELAH China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28JM-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that China State, as an unsecured creditor, had sufficient interest to intervene (following Million Westlink and interpreting Rule 13 not to exclude unsecured creditors from being heard); however the judicial management application (Encl 1) failed because applicant did not prove a real prospect or that it was more likely than not that judicial management would achieve the survival of the company (fatal lack of credible proof of funding to complete the Project). Leave nunc pro tunc was granted to China State to proceed with its winding-up petition (Petition 648).
25 Aug 2025

1. ) Siemens Mobility Sdn Bhd 2. ) Siemens Mobility GmbH 3. ) Rasma Corporation Sdn Bhd Setia Utama LRT 3 Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-28-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-28-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the consortium was an unincorporated association lacking legal personality and therefore was not a valid 'unpaid party' or 'claimant' under CIPAA; consequently the adjudication was void ab initio for excess of jurisdiction, retrospective ratification could not cure the jurisdictional defect, counsel had no authority to represent a non-existent legal entity, and the adjudication decision was set aside.
23 Jun 2025

Eversendai Constructions (M) Sdn. Bhd. Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-24C-150-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-150-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under s25 CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing because written submissions and further queries were permitted, correctly found res judicata did not apply to the CIPAA 2 claims (retention sums were not previously adjudicated or paid), there was no evidence of fraud improperly procuring the AD, and SUJV failed to show special circumstances or convincing evidence of ECSB’s insolvency to justify a stay; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and enforcement orders in OS150 granted.