Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LLC INFRA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
VKPT SDN BHD – Respondent
[Companies (Winding Up) No: WA-28NCC-878-09/2024]
Key Points:
- The petition sought recovery of RM100,380 comprising a CIPAA adjudication award of RM98,300 and a High Court order for RM2,080. [1] (!)
- VKPT admitted the debt but argued it was contested pending other proceedings, including Suit 81 and an application to stay the adjudication decision. (!) (!) (!)
- The court held that an adjudication decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act is binding and creates an indisputable debt for winding‑up purposes, irrespective of pending challenges. [22] (!)
- The principle that such a decision renders the debt "indisputable" was applied, meaning the debt is not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. [23] (!)
- Because the debt is not genuinely disputed, the creditor has a statutory right (ex debito justitiae) to obtain a winding‑up order. (!) (!)
- The court dismissed the respondent’s application to stay the winding‑up petition. [4] (!)
- The winding‑up order was granted, confirming the enforceability of the adjudication award in liquidation proceedings. [30] (!)
- The judgment reaffirmed that winding‑up petitions may be based on adjudication decisions without requiring a separate judgment or enforcement order. (!) (!)
- The statutory notice of demand was properly served, and the respondent failed to pay within the 21‑day period, satisfying the procedural requirements for the petition. [12][13]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition based on adjudicated debt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the sub-subcontract and adjudication. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. judicial management and demand for payment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. vkpt's arguments against the petition. (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. indisputability of adjudication decisions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. cipaa indisputability vs winding up policy. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. court's obligations and final decision. (Para 30 , 31) |
Introduction
[1] The Petitioner claims a debt for monies owed under two (2) decisions, being an adjudication decision dated 11 January 2024 ("the Adjudication Decision") under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA") and an order of the High Court dated 20 May 2024 ("the High Court Order").
(a) The Petitioner filed a winding up petition dated 23 September 2024 (Encl 1) ("the Petition") based on the aforesaid debt. In response, the Respondent filed a notice of application dated 28 November 2024 (Encl 21) for essentially, a stay of the Petition pending the hearing of the other application for the a stay of the Adjudication Decision in WA-24C-190-11/2024 ("Suit 190").
(b) The Petitioner filed submissions ("collectively "Petitioner Subs") on 26 November 2024 ("Petitioner Subs-1") (Encl 16) and on 17 December 2024 ("Petitioner Subs-2") (Encl 26).
(c) The Respondent ("VKPT") filed its submissions in support of Encl 21 on 17 December 2024 (Encl 28) ("VKPT Subs").
[2] The facts and matters set out in paras 3 to 19 below are largely derived from Petitioner Subs and VKPT Subs.
[3] The Petition was heard on 28 November 2024 but on the eve of the hearing, VKPT filed Encl 21 on 28 November 2024 at 8.14 am. The Petitioner submitted that:
(a) during the hearing of the Petition, VKPT did not deny the existence of the debt;
(b) VKPT admitted the debt but refused to pay solely on the premise that the subject matter of the Adjudication Decision was being challenged in KLHC CS No. WA-22C-81-11/2024 ("Suit 81"). Suit 81 was again filed late, on 12 November 2024 and served on 14 November 2024, just two (2) weeks before the hearing of the Petition.
[4] After hearing oral argument, I dismissed Encl 21 and granted the Petition. VKPT appealed. These are my grounds.
Background Facts
Sub-SubContract
[5] By a letter of award dated 26 July 2021 ("LOA") (Encl 1 Ex B), the Petitioner awarded VKPT the "Sub-Subcontract for Trackwork and Power Conductor Rail Installation Works: Package 2A Mainline Installation Works from GS05~GS10" (the "Sub-Subcontract").
[6] On 20 September 2022, pursuant to cl 15.2(b) of the LOA, the Petitioner terminated the Sub-Subcontract with immediate effect ("Termination") (Encl 1 Ex B). The termination was disputed by VKPT.
Adjudication Decision
[7] Subsequent to the Termination, VKPT served the Petitioner with an Adjudication Notice under CIPAA.
[8] By an Adjudication Decision of 11 January 2024, the adjudicator found that VKPT had failed to prove its claim and dismissed VKPT's claim in its entirety. He awarded costs of RM98,300.00 ("the CIPAA Debt") to the Petitioner (Encl 1 Ex E).
[9] By letters dated 27 February 2024, 1 April 2024, and 6 May 2024, the Petitioner demanded the CIPAA Debt of RM98,300.00. No payment was forthcoming (Encl 1 Ex F).
Judicial Management
[10] Separately, on 15 March 2023, VKPT filed an ex-parte application in KLHC OS No WA-28JM-7-03/2023 ("JM7"). On 9 November 2023, VKPT obtained an extension of six (6) months of the judicial management order granted on 11 May 2023 ("JMO").
(a) By a notice of application dated 8 January 2024, the Petitioner applied for, amongst others, leave to intervene in JM7 and for an order that JM7 be struck out.
(b) On 10 May 2023, the JMO expired.
(c) On 20 May 2024, the High Court made the High Court Order granting the Petitioner leave to intervene and awarded the Petitioner costs of RM2,000.00, subject to the allocator fee of RM80.00.
(d) The total amount due to the Pet
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
