A court will only exercise its discretion to stay winding-up proceedings if the applicant provides cogent, positive evidence of commercial solvency and satisfies the court that a stay serves the interests of creditors and public morality, rather than creating risks of further insolvency.

JUDGMENT

Saheran Suhendran JC:

[1] These Grounds concern a notice of appeal (encl 35) filed against my decision on 24 November 2025 dismissing, inter alia, encl 1, a notice of motion dated 13 June 2025 filed for an interim stay for 12 months of the winding up order dated 28 March 2006 made against the respondent.

[2] The applicant, vide a grant of letters of administration dated 30 July 2024 issued by the High Court of Kuala Lumpur in WA-31NCvC-2274-07/2024, is the administrator for all the property of Chia Soon Hua ("the deceased") the majority contributory and former director of the respondent.

[3] The respondent is a company having its business in manufacturing and producing brick products since 1990. On 28 March 2006, the respondent was wound up by the High Court of Kuala Lumpur in Companies (Winding-up) No: D5-28-636-2005 and whereby, the Official Receiver was appointed as the liquidator.

[4] All references to 'sections' herein are with reference to the sections of the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016") or sections of the Companies Act, 1965 ("CA 1965"), where the context so permits.

Background Facts

[5] Tenaga Nasional Berhad ("TNB") supplied electricity to the respondent's factory pursuant to the supply of electricity contract dated 1 March 1996 ("the Supply Contract"). As required by TNB, the respondent constructed a power substation which housed the switchgear and relay system which functioned as a protection system against internal fault.

[6] On or around 13 October 1997, Jabatan Kerja Raya ("JKR"), under the control of the Government of Malaysia ("GOM"), embarked on constructing a rest and recreation area ("the Project") on the Ipoh — Kuala Lumpur's highway, whereby the GOM appointed Markas Perdana Sdn Bhd ("the contractor") as contractor.

[7] On 5 August 1998, the contractor whilst carrying out the works at the site struck an underground cable ("the Cable") belonging to TNB which was connected to the respondent's factory via a switching station. The Cable was broken and interrupted the supply of electricity to the respondent's factory. Consequently, the operations in the factory ceased and the respondent's equipment was damaged.

The Respondent's Claim

[8] Following the incident, the respondent filed a claim against the GOM and TNB in the High Court of Ipoh for damages due to the power disruption that damaged the respondent's manufacturing equipment.

[9] The legal proceedings for Reparations went to the Federal Court. The respondent was successful. On 24 April 2018, the Federal Court maintained the finding of liability for negligence by the GOM and TNB in favour of the respondent. The respondent's claim for economic losses due to physical damage to goods, was to be assessed by the High Court in Ipoh, together with other miscellaneous claims.

Assessment Proceeding At The High Court

[10] On 10 May 2019, the respondent filed a Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Damages in the High Court in Ipoh for the purpose of assessing damages for the physical damage to goods as ordered by the Federal Court. The GOM and TNB are to pay 2/3 of the losses and damages assessed to the respondent.

[11] On 17 March 2022, the High Court of Ipoh assessed and awarded damages to the respondent in the sum of RM36,470,306.32.

[12] On appeal, on 11 November 2024, the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal in part in that the appeal on post-judgment interest was allowed at the rate of 5% per annum on the judgment sum until realization. Motions for leave to the Federal Court were dismissed. As such, the respondent