Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona fide dispute

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2026

MULTIMODAL FREIGHT SDN BHD Prakash Maniam

Citation

JA-24NCvC-113-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-113-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found a genuine bona fide dispute on substantive grounds (existence of contract, duration of service, disputed additional charges and prior withdrawn civil suit) and that use of the winding‑up process in these circumstances amounted to an abuse of process; accordingly a Fortuna injunction was appropriate to restrain the Defendant from filing, continuing or publicising a winding‑up petition based on the 18.12.2025 statutory notice until a final judgment on the alleged debt, and costs of RM6,000 were awarded to the Plaintiff.
29 Jan 2026

PEMPETISYEN CS NAM SDN BHD ALM TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-911-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-911-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service was valid, the Sessions Court judgment was final and survived the High Court appeal, a further appeal without a stay does not negate the enforceability of the judgment, failure to satisfy the statutory demand within 21 days created a rebuttable presumption of inability to pay which the respondent failed to rebut, and there was no bona fide dispute or substantial cross-claim; accordingly a winding-up order was justified.
28 Jan 2026

PEMPETISYEN MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD THB POWER SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-187-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-187-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the adjudication decision created an enforceable entitlement and the respondent failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or to show immediate means of payment; without prejudice communications relied upon in the parties' affidavits were properly before the court or waived; therefore enforcement by winding up was appropriate and the winding-up petition is allowed, while the competing motion to appoint private liquidators is dismissed on the facts.
2 Dec 2025

PEMPETISYEN YHL PROPERTY SDN BHD SILVERON BUILDERS SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN Chee Kam Fatt

Citation

JA-28NCC-15-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28NCC-15-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The statutory presumption of inability to pay arose on non-compliance with the statutory demand and was not rebutted because the Respondent’s own audited financial statements evidenced commercial insolvency; the judgment debt was final and unstayed so not bona fide disputed; any cross-claim should be pursued by a liquidator; the petition was not an abuse or premature and the Johor court had jurisdiction — therefore a winding-up order and appointment of the Director-General of Insolvency were justified.
6 Nov 2025

PENS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. HAMZAH JAAFAR (P) SDN. BHD.

Citation

RA-24NCvC-66-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-24NCvC-66-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the court found the defendant's statement of account was not bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, the plaintiff failed to prove irreparable harm and its claimed solvency was not convincing; therefore the Fortuna injunction was refused and the originating summons in content 1 dismissed with costs of RM5,000 subject to taxation.
17 Oct 2025

PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD VICTORIOUS STEP SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCC-82-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-82-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court granted the Fortuna injunction because the defendant's claim was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, parties were engaged in negotiations with verification processes ongoing, plaintiff had deposited the claimed sum into solicitor's client account and showed real risk of irreparable harm from a winding-up petition; therefore presentation of a winding-up petition was an inappropriate forum and had no real chance of success in the circumstances.
21 Aug 2025

ENERGY EQUIPMENT TECH SDN BHD ARUS JAYA OIL & GAS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-547-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-547-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application is dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: the Letter of Assurance did not discharge Plaintiff's contractual liability and was conditional on a Notice of Assignment which Plaintiff did not give; contemporaneous auditor confirmation admitted the debt; Plaintiff failed to show solvency or irreparable harm. Therefore the Fortuna injunction was refused.
16 May 2025

PEMPETISYEN BRILLIANT STAR CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-225-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-225-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition is struck out because the respondent has demonstrated a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds over the claimed debt, the dispute requires adjudication by arbitration or trial (not resolution on affidavit in winding-up), and the petition therefore constitutes an abuse of process; costs of MYR 15,000 awarded.
19 Mar 2025

PEMPETISYEN TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD B.S. CIVIL ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-28NCC-14-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-28NCC-14-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court judgment for RM644,343.91 remained valid and unpaid and the respondent failed to demonstrate a bona fide, substantive dispute supported by credible evidence; therefore the debt was due and payable within s466(1)(a) and a winding-up order was properly made; the petition was not an abuse of process.
10 Feb 2025

PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD U.C.M. AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCC-87-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-87-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed both limbs of the Fortuna test: Proton did not demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds regarding the alleged debt nor that presentation of the winding‑up petition would cause irreparable harm; Proton's conduct and partial payments amounted to admission or estoppel and mere denials of interest/claims were insufficient to defeat the statutory demand; accordingly the injunction was refused.