UBBIM Resources Sdn Bhd v TRT Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd PENCELAH INDUSTRIAL WATER ENGINEERS (M) SDN. BHD.

ba-28ncc-698-12-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 11 August 2025 • BA-28NCC-698-12/2023

Catchwords

An application to wind up the petition under section 465 (1) (e) and 466 (1) (a) of the Companies Act 2016 (‘CA 2016’)-unpaid debt arising from an adjudication decision rendered under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)-application to strike out the petition on grounds of non-compliance with statutory service requirements and the existence of bona fide disputes-grounds for striking out are the petition and statutory notice were not served at the Respondent’s registered address as required under section 466(1)(a) and Rule 25 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972-debt is disputed-it would be unjust and inequitable to wind up a solvent company- service was only carry out at the business address and not registered address-Respondent has clearly received the Petition-having filed an affidavit in opposition and the striking out application-court is satisfied that service has been duly effected and in compliance with the law-Respondent suffered no prejudice-debts arising from adjudication decisions under CIPAA, unless set aside or stayed are not capable of being disputed at the winding up stage-the debt is final and binding-the statutory presumption of inability to pay arises-no cogent evidence of solvency-striking out is dismissed-winding up order is granted.

Practice Areas

An application to wind up the petition under section 465 (1) (e) and 466 (1) (a) of the Companies Act 2016 (‘CA 2016’)-unpaid debt arising from an adjudication decision rendered under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)-application to strike out the petition on grounds of non-compliance with statutory service requirements and the existence of bona fide disputes-grounds for striking out are the petition and statutory notice were not served at the Respondent’s registered address as required under section 466(1)(a) and Rule 25 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972-debt is disputed-it would be unjust and inequitable to wind up a solvent company- service was only carry out at the business address and not registered address-Respondent has clearly received the Petition-having filed an affidavit in opposition and the striking out application-court is satisfied that service has been duly effected and in compliance with the law-Respondent suffered no prejudice-debts arising from adjudication decisions under CIPAA, unless set aside or stayed are not capable of being disputed at the winding up stage-the debt is final and binding-the statutory presumption of inability to pay arises-no cogent evidence of solvency-striking out is dismissed-winding up order is granted.

Judges (1)

Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran Delivered

Parties (3)

INDUSTRIAL WATER ENGINEERS Sdn Bhd Intervener TRT Engineering Sdn Bhd Respondent UBBIM Resources Sdn Bhd Petitioner

Case Significance

UBBIM Resources Sdn Bhd v TRT Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd PENCELAH INDUSTRIAL WAT... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 11, 2025 (citation: ba-28ncc-698-12-2023). The case was decided by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran.

What was the outcome of UBBIM Resources Sdn Bhd v TRT Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd PENCELAH INDUSTRIAL WAT...?

UBBIM Resources Sdn Bhd v TRT Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd PENCELAH INDUSTRIAL WAT... is a High Court decision dated August 11, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran. See the full judgment for details.