A debt adjudicated under CIPAA becomes indisputable for winding-up proceedings, even amidst ongoing disputes, establishing the creditor's right to seek a winding-up order without further contest.

Saheran Suhendran JC:

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 Petitioner was therefore RM100,380.00.

[11] On 11 July 2024 and upon receipt of the High Court Order a