Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disputed debt

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2024

LH Bintang Development Sdn Bhd Pachira Eco Garden Associates Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24NCC-464-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-464-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the intended winding-up petition had no real prospect of success because the Debt was genuinely disputed and the Defendant failed to show any enforceable contract or adequate evidence for services after 30.4.2023; permitting the petition would be an abuse of process and cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff, therefore a Fortuna Injunction was required and granted with costs.
16 Jul 2024

COUNTRY HEIGHTS HOLDINGS BERHAD TETUAN CHELLAM WONG

Citation

BA-24NCvC-765-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-765-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the evidence that the debt was not disputable: the Letter of Appointment was valid, Jared Lim had apparent authority and the respondent was entitled to rely on the indoor management rule; the invoices were acknowledged and the statutory framework and time limits for taxation meant the applicant had not shown a bona fide defence or 'no chance of success'. Therefore the applicant failed to meet the threshold for a Fortuna injunction and the applications were dismissed with costs.
3 Oct 2023

CEKAP AIR SDN. BHD. SERBA DINAMIK SDN. BHD (Dalam Likuidasi)

Citation

WA-28PW-262-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-262-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found substantial bona fide disputes of fact and law regarding the existence, quantum and assignment of the debt and the authenticity/contents of competing novation documents; because those disputes require trial evidence and cross-examination, allowing the Respondent to present a winding-up petition based on the statutory notice would be an abuse of process and cause irreparable harm, therefore a Fortuna injunction is granted.
14 Nov 2022

PEMPETISYEN Datuk’ Gopal Sri Ram, Y.C. Wong Yasmeen Soh, Jean Aw and Ho Hui Ying for the Petitioner [Messrs Y.C. Wong] Datuk Malik Imtiaz, Mark Ho Hing Kheong, Pang Li Xuan, Khoo Suk Chyi and Eldarius Yong Zhen Jie for the Respondent [Messr

Citation

WA-28NCC-885-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-885-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petition dismissed because the alleged debt for gold tribute was seriously disputed on facts and law and required determination by civil courts; petitioner at best a contingent creditor and has not established just and equitable grounds under s465(1)(h); petition was improperly used as pressure and other remedies were available, therefore winding up was inappropriate.
14 Nov 2022

PEMPETISYEN RAUB MINING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SDN BHD AKAY HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-885-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-885-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petition dismissed because the alleged debt for gold tribute was seriously disputed on both fact and law, the dispute must be resolved by the civil courts rather than by winding up, the petitioner at best was a contingent creditor and the petition amounted to an abuse of process/ collateral pressure; just and equitable grounds were not proven by independent evidence.
27 Jun 2022

PEMPETISYEN Lim Shuk Kim for the Petitioner [MessrsTan Chuan Yong & S.M Chan] Andrew Fernandez for the Respondent [Messrs Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff]

Citation

WA-28NCC-163-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-163-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to make a prima facie case of inability to pay under s465(1)(e): available financial evidence (assets, valuations, OR report, independent solvency review) prima facie showed sufficient assets to meet liabilities; the debt was genuinely disputed by ongoing SIAC arbitration such that the adjudication decision may be overridden; the just and equitable ground was not pleaded with particulars; the petitioner did not stand outside the winding up notwithstanding a prior proof of debt. Consequently the petition was obviously unsustainable and s…
19 Jul 2021

Lim Chee Wee together with Geraldine Goon for the Respondent [Messrs Lim Chee Wee Partnership) LAIN-LAIN Lee Ming Hong for the Petitioner [Messrs David Lai & Tan]

Citation

COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO: WA-28NCC-138-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO: WA-28NCC-138-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition was dismissed because the debt claimed was prima facie and substantially disputed on the evidence before the court, the petitioner therefore was not a creditor for the purposes of the Companies Act and the winding-up procedure was not the appropriate forum to resolve the disputed factual and legal issues; the disputes require trial and viva voce evidence.
24 May 2021

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]

Citation

COMPANIES (WINDING UP) PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-1290-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

WINDING UP
Case number

COMPANIES (WINDING UP) PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-1290-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
27 Apr 2021

LION PACIFIC SDN BHD PESTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCC-33-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-33-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the statutory demand was founded on an adjudication decision that had been enforced as a High Court order under CIPAA s28 and the plaintiff's attempts to obtain stays or set aside that order had failed; consequently the debt was undisputed and the requirements for a Fortuna injunction were not met.
31 Mar 2021

Anantha Krishnan for the Respondent [Messrs Anantha Krishnan] LAIN-LAIN Nicolas Ooi and Natalie Ooi for the Petitioner [Messrs Ooi & Ooi]

Citation

COMPANIES WINDING UP NO. WA-28NCC-303-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

COMPANIES WINDING UP NO. WA-28NCC-303-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition was allowed because the petitioner had obtained a court order enforcing the CIPAA adjudication decision under s28, making the debt a court order and not a disputed debt; pending appeals do not render such a court order disputed nor automatically stay execution; the respondent's alleged cross-claim was unserved and unsupported and therefore insufficient to rebut the petition; the Companies (Exemption) (No.2) Order 2020 did not apply to the statutory demand and petition dates; respondent failed to rebut the presumption of insolvency.