JB KULIM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v GREAT PURPOSE SDN BHD [2002] 2 MLJ 298

 

  
JB KULIM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v GREAT PURPOSE SDN BHD
[2002] 2 MLJ 298
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO 24–1124 OF 2001
HIGH COURT (ALOR SETAR)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 7 FEBRUARY 2002
BALIA YUSOF JC
CATCHWORDS:
Companies and Corporations – Winding up – Statutory demand – Application for injunction to restrain defendant from filing winding up petition – Whether plaintiff had to establish a prima facie case instead of merely a bona fide serious issue to be tried – Whether bona fide dispute to debt – Whether dispute as to amount of debt was sufficient to dismiss winding up petition if debt exceeded statutory amount of RM500

Evidence – Without prejudice communications – Admissibility – Plaintiff had introduced documents made on ‘without prejudice’ basis – Whether introduction of ‘without prejudice’ documents by plaintiff was tantamount to waiver on its part

HEADNOTES:
The plaintiff was a housing developer in respect of a housing project in Alor Setar. The plaintiff appointed the defendant as its contractor to construct houses in the housing project. Disputes subsequently arose between the parties as to the progress of the housing project. The defendant then served on the plaintiff a notice under s 218 of the Companies Act 1965 (‘the Act’) demanding a sum of money allegedly due under interim certificates issued by the architect in respect of the work done by the defendant (‘the debt’). This was the plaintiff’s application to restrain the defendant from filing a winding up petition. Alternatively, the plaintiff also sought to restrain the defendant from serving the petition until the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in a civil suit to be filed had been determined by the court and from advertising the petition. The issue for determination was whether the plaintiff may obtain an injunction against the impending threat of a winding up petition brought by the defendant based on a notice issued under s 218 of the Act and the standard of proof or test required of the plaintiff to succeed in such an application.

housing developer in respect of a housing project pemaju perumahan sebuah projek perumahan
appointed the defendant as its contractor to construct houses melantik defendan sebagai kontraktornya untuk membina rumah-rumah
to construct houses untuk membina rumah-rumah
Disputes subsequently arose between the parties Pertikaian kemudiannya berbangkit antara pihak-pihak tersebut
between the parties antara pihak-pihak tersebut
subsequently kemudiannya
as to the progress of the housing project. berhubung dengan kemajuan projek perumahan tersebut. 
The defendant then served on the plaintiff a notice under s 218 of the Companies Act 1965 (‘the Act’) Defendan kemudiannya telah menyampaikan terhadap plaintif satu notis di bawah s 218 Akta Syarikat 1965 (‘Akta tersebut’)
served on the plaintiff a notice telah menyampaikan terhadap plaintif satu notis
served on the plaintiff menyampaikan terhadap plaintif
demanding a sum of money menuntut satu jumlah wang
allegedly due yang dikatakan kena dibayar
under interim certificates di bawah sijil-sijil interim
issued by the architect yang dikeluarkan oleh arkitek
in respect of the work done berhubung dengan kerja yang telah dilakukan
work done kerja yang telah dilakukan
by the defendant (‘the debt’). oleh defendan (‘hutang tersebut’).
This was the plaintiff’s application Ini merupakan permohonan plaintif
to restrain the defendant untuk menghalang defendan
from filing a winding up petition. daripada memfailkan satu petisyen penggulungan.
winding up petition petisyen penggulungan
Alternatively, the plaintiff also Secara alternatifnya, plaintif juga
Alternative Lain
sought to restrain the defendant cuba untuk menghalang defendan
from serving the petition daripada menyampaikan petisyen tersebut
until the plaintiff’s claim sehingga tuntutan plaintif
against the defendant terhadap defendan
in a civil suit dalam satu guaman sivil
to be filed yang akan difailkan
had been determined by the court telah ditentukan oleh mahkamah
and from advertising the petition. dan daripada mengiklankan petisyen tersebut.
The issue for determination was Isu untuk penentuan adalah
whether the plaintiff may obtain an injunction sama ada plaintif boleh mendapatkan satu injunksi
obtain mendapatkan
against the impending threat terhadap ancaman yang akan menimpa/berlaku
of a winding up petition petisyen penggulungan
brought by the defendant yang telah dimulakan oleh defendan
based on a notice berdasarkan satu notis
issued under s 218 of the Act yang dikeluarkan di bawah s 218 Akta tersebut
and the standard of proof dan piawai bukti
or test required of the plaintiff atau ujian yang dikehendaki dari plaintif
to succeed in such an application. untuk berjaya di dalam permohonan yang sedemikian.
This entry was posted in Building contract and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.