Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cipaa adjudication enforcement

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2025

PEMPETISYEN PERKASA JAUHARI SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION) YS CHONG ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

JA-28NCC-157-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28NCC-157-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the adjudication/CIPAA Order had been effectively superseded by the subsequent JBHC judgment and appellate outcomes which the Respondent failed to overturn; the Respondent did not substantiate the alleged set-off; even accepting the set-off the outstanding debt exceeded the RM50,000 threshold; accordingly the statutory demand was valid, the petition succeeded and the Respondent was ordered wound up with a private liquidator appointed and security dispensed.
26 Nov 2024

PEMPETISYEN KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD EMBITION SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

WA-28NCC-266-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-266-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Bound by the Court of Appeal in Bludream City, an adjudication decision enforced by the High Court for a CIPAA debt is undisputable for the purposes of a winding-up petition; consequently the petitioner had a statutory right (ex debito justitiae) to a winding-up order and the petition was granted.
6 Mar 2024

BLUDREAM CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PEMBINAAN BINA BUMI SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCC)(A)-2145-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

B-02(NCC)(A)-2145-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that a creditor may lawfully present a winding-up petition based on an adjudication decision that has been enforced as a court judgment under CIPAA; once enforcement is ordered and attempts to set aside or stay are dismissed the adjudicated debt is not disputable in winding-up proceedings, the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of insolvency, and the winding-up order was properly made and therefore affirmed.
20 Mar 2023

S & S QUEST RESOURCES SDN BHD JEWEL BUILDERS & RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-146-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-146-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

An adjudication decision under CIPAA constitutes an undisputed debt and may form the basis of a s466 statutory demand and winding up petition unless and until it is set aside or stayed; mere filing of s15/s16 applications does not render the debt disputed; a Fortuna injunction may only be granted if the applicant establishes a bona fide cross-claim on substantial grounds supported by evidence, which the Plaintiff failed to do, therefore the injunction was refused and the applications dismissed with costs.
16 Nov 2022

1. ) LUXOR HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) LUXOR YRM SDN BHD SQA BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C(ARB)-10-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24C(ARB)-10-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that (1) the repeal of s42 by Act A1569 does not automatically deprive parties of vested rights arising from arbitral proceedings commenced before 8 May 2018 (s23 AA read with s30 IA), but the availability of s42 is subject to statutory threshold requirements; (2) the ten questions in amended OS No.9 failed the s42 threshold (many were factual/mixed issues, did not arise on the face of the award or did not substantially affect rights) and OS No.9 was dismissed; (3) the s37 challenge to set aside the award failed because the arbitrator’s conduct and reasons did not constitute a…
2 Aug 2022

PEMPETISYEN NASAR DEVELOPMENT GROUP HOLDING SDN BHD MIDD CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-37-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-37-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the respondent demonstrated a bona fide dispute as to the sums claimed by showing overlapping issues and a pending writ action and counterclaim addressing the same matters (delay, LAD, back-to-back contract) and because the adjudication decision was not finally immune from challenge while related court proceedings under CIPAA were pending, the winding up petition was dismissed.
15 Dec 2021

Sohan Yong for the Respondent [Messrs T Tharuma & Assoc.) LAIN-LAIN 1. ) Nur Hidayah Bt Mohamad Fauzi and K. Sheela T. Vinayaka Das for the Petitioner [Messrs Lewis & Co.] 2. ) Kamraj Nagayam & Maya Gayathri for Geopancar Sdn Bhd, Supportin

Citation

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-438-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

WINDING-UP
Case number

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-438-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court appointed the nominated private liquidator because the three supporting creditors demonstrated combined debts (RM46,751,630.45) vastly exceeding the petitioner's claimed sum (approx. RM2,000,000), and the nominated liquidator was shown to be suitably qualified; the court exercised its statutory discretion under the Companies Act 2016 to make that appointment.
27 Jul 2021

JAKS SDN BHD ZETA LETRIK SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-289-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-289-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantive grounds supported by evidence to restrain presentation of a winding-up petition based on the CIPAA adjudication decision; the adjudication decision remains binding and enforceable until set aside or stayed, therefore defendant is entitled to pursue winding-up proceedings; OS dismissed with costs but an interim Erinford injunction was granted to preserve status quo pending appeal subject to conditions.