SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 229

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
EMBITION SDN BHD – Respondent
[Companies Winding-Up No: WA-28NCC-266-03/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:Dinesh ,Respondent Advocate: Kevin Wong Gia Meng,Vivian Siew

A CIPAA debt is enforceable and undisputable in winding up proceedings, even amidst ongoing arbitration or appeals, as it constitutes a judgment debt.

Headnote:(A) Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Sections 5, 13, and 28 - Companies Act 2016 - Section 466 - Winding up petition - The court granted a winding up order against Embition for failing to pay a CIPAA debt, which was deemed undisputable despite ongoing arbitration and appeal proceedings. The court emphasized that the CIPAA debt, being a judgment debt, is enforceable notwithstanding disputes. (Paras 9, 63, 90)

(B) Winding Up - The court reiterated that a winding up order cannot be based on a disputed debt, but if the debt is undisputable, the petition must be granted. (Paras 20, 90)

(C) Adjudication Decision - The court held that an adjudication decision under CIPAA has temporary finality but is enforceable as a judgment, thus making the debt undisputable for winding up purposes. (Paras 64, 90)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner filed a winding up petition against Embition for failing to pay a CIPAA debt of RM1,347,044.94, which was ordered by an adjudicator. Embition disputed the debt and initiated arbitration proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the CIPAA debt was undisputable and granted the winding up order, emphasizing the statutory right of the petitioner to such an order.

Issues: The main issues were whether the CIPAA debt was genuinely disputed and the implications of ongoing arbitration on the winding up petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the CIPAA debt, being a judgment debt, is enforceable and undisputable in winding up proceedings, regardless of ongoing arbitration or appeal.

Result: Winding up order granted.

JUDGMENT

Saheran Suhendran:

Introduction

[1] This matter concerns a petition ("the Petition") to wind up the Respondent ("Embition") for failing to satisfy an adjudication decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA'). The Index hereof is as below.

Background Facts

[2] Pursuant to a Letter of Award dated 13 June 2018 ("LOA"), Embition appointed the Petitioner to carry out infrastructure works ("Works") in a project known as "Construction and Completion of Infrastructure Works for Cadangan Pembangunan (Guarded Community) on Lot 424, Mukim Ulu Kelang, Selangor Darul Ehsan" (the "Project"), see: Exhibit "CKL-1", Encl 21

[3] Embition claimed that the Works were delayed due to the Petitioner's breaches of the LOA. The Petitioner applied for extensions of time ("EOTs"), which were allowed by the project architect ("Architect"). The Architect also certified claims for variation orders ("VO Claims").

[4] Embition consistently disputed the VO Claims and the EOTs. The CIPAA Proceedings and the Arbitration.

[5] On 27 December 2022, the Petitioner made a claim against Embition for RM1,347,044.94 under s 5 of CIPAA. On 6 January 2023, Embition disputed liability for RM1,279,425.69 proffering a cross-claim of RM847,380.75 as at 31 December 2022 together with liquidated damages accruing at RM15,000.00 per day.

[6] On 26 January 2023, the Petitioner, by a Notice of Adjudication, initiated adjudication proceedings against Embition.

[7] The adjudicator delivered his decision dated 15 May 2023 ("Adjudication Decision" or Encl 15) ordering Embition to pay the Petitioner RM1,347,044.94 with interest and costs, see Exhibit "CKL-2", Encl 2.

[8] On 7 June 2023, the Petitioner filed an enforcement application via OS 91 ("Enforcement Application"). Embition filed Encl OS 81 which prayed for an order to set aside Encl 15 ("Setting Aside") and filed OS 80 for a stay pending arbitration ("Stay").

[9] On 20 October 2023, the High Court granted the Enforcement Application ("the Enforcement Decision") over the Adjudication Decision resulting in an enforceable debt ("CIPAA Debt"). And the Court dismissed the Stay and Setting Aside applications, see: Exhibit "CKL-3", Encl 2.

[10] Embition appealed ("the CA Appeal"). I was informed that the hearing date before the Court of Appeal is fixed on 31 January 2025, see Exhibit "CKL-4", Encl 2.

[11] There is also an ongoing arbitration initiated by Embition against the Petitioner on 4 January 2023 ("the Arbitration"). The evidentiary hearing of the Arbitration was fixed between 26 November 2024 and 29 November 2024, see Exhibit "CKL-5", Encl 21.

[12] As such, there were several on-going proceedings whereby the Adjudication Decision and thereby, the CIPAA Debt were questioned.

The Petitioner's Case

[13] On 19 March 2024 and after the Arbitration was commenced, the Petitioner filed the Petition to wind up Embition.

[14] The Petitioner's case is straight forward. It claims that the Petition ought to be granted as:

(a) the CIPAA Debt is not genuinely disputed;

(b) Embition is unable to pay its debts.

Not Genuinely Disputed

[15] First, the Petitioner submits that the CIPAA Debt is not disputed notwithstanding the CA Appeal. It treats the CIPAA Debt as a judgment debt, which (without more) is due notwithstanding an appeal.

[16] The Petitioner further submits that a Court cannot go behind the Adjudication Decision and the Enforcement Judgment nor to decide the merits of the CIPAA claim in the Petition, citing Smartframe Sdn Bhd v. Anjung Bahasa Sdn Bhd ; 2011 MarsdenLR 3738 at para 8.1.

Unable To Pay Its Debts

[17] Secondly, the Petitioner claims that Embition failed to pay the CIPAA Debt in totality. On the expiry of a demand by the Petitioner under section 466 of the Companies Act 2016 (" CA 2016"), Embition was deemed to be unable to pay its debts, see Pontian United Theatre Sdn Bhd v. Southern Finance Bhd 2006 MarsdenLR 1382 at headnote (1).

[18] After completio


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top