LANGKASUKA LAND Sdn Bhd

On the court record

Illustrates how a property developer becomes the target of asset-freezing, statutory direct-payment and foreclosure remedies as creditors move to secure and enforce their claims.

Langkasuka Land Sdn Bhd appears in the reported judgments as a landowning and development company litigating in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) across asset-preservation, construction-payment and foreclosure disputes. Its matters show a company exposed to claims from contractors, a social-security body and other creditors, and subject to injunctive and enforcement measures over its assets.

In one decision the company was a defendant to a Mareva injunction application, the court examining whether the elements of such an injunction were satisfied — whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case, whether the defendants had assets within the jurisdiction, and whether there was a real risk of dissipation of assets — and, finding dishonest conduct and non-performance and that a private caveat did not negate the risk of dissipation, ordering the Mareva injunction. That relief is among the most intrusive interlocutory orders, freezing a defendant's assets to preserve the prospect of eventual recovery.

A second matter concerned an application under section 30 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 for direct payment from a principal following an unsatisfied adjudication decision, the issue being whether monies were due or payable by the company as principal to the contractor at the time the notice for direct payment was issued; the court held that the applicant had satisfied the requirements and that the company had failed to prove no sums were due, and ordered direct payment. A third decision engaged the company in foreclosure proceedings brought by a chargee, involving an order for sale by originating summons, cause to the contrary, service of notice, indefeasibility of the charge, and related contractual instruments such as a put-and-call option agreement. Across the matters, the company illustrates how a property developer becomes the target of asset-freezing, statutory direct-payment and foreclosure remedies as its creditors move to secure and enforce their claims.