LT LETRIK SDN BHD V PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Our client, Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd, successfully resisted the Defendant’s application to compel it to deposit RM60,000 as security for costs. The High Court agreed that the Defendant filed the application wrongly and without mandatory leave, even though Panzana was under Judicial Management. The Court also held that the Defendant relied on an incorrect section of the Companies Act, making the application fundamentally defective. Importantly, the judge confirmed that a company’s financial difficulties alone cannot justify forcing it to provide security for costs. With these findings, the Court dismissed the application and awarded RM4,000 in costs to our client. 

NORINAH BINTI MOHAMED (32 ORS) V ALPHACAPITA (M) BERHAD

Our client, Alphacapital (M) Berhad, successfully defended a winding-up petition brought by several investors seeking to dissolve the company. The High Court agreed with our arguments that the petition was legally unsustainable, as there was no clear or undisputed debt and the investors’ claims were still subject to contractual conditions that had not matured. The Court also accepted that the alleged “dividends” were not automatic payments, since no distributable profits existed and no dividend was ever declared. Importantly, the judge found that the investors were attempting to use the winding-up process as pressure to recover disputed investment sums, which the law does not permit. Thee petition was dismissed in full marking a complete victory for our client. 

NEXT FORTUNE SDN BHD V LOW JEE KEONG

Our client, Next Fortune Sdn Bhd, successfully overturned a RM13.9 million summary judgement that had been entered against the company. The Respondent claimed the agreement amounted to a Sale & Purchase Agreement for several houses, but we argued that it was in fact an investment arrangement, not a straightforward property sale. The Court of Appeal agreed that this key issue of interpretation, whether the parties has an investor-investee relationship or a sale transaction, is a serious and genuine dispute that must be tested at trail. Because of these substantial factual and legal issues, the Court held that summary judgment was inappropriate. The judgement was set aside entirely and the case had been sent back to the High Court for a full hearing, with no costs imposed on our client. 

AQ WORLD SDN BHD V RGP CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD

Our client, RGP Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd, successfully defended a winding-up petition filed against the company. The High Court struck out the petition, confirming that it cannot be re-filed unless the Petitioner first obtains a monetary judgement through arbitration. In a separate ruling, the Court granted RGP a permanent Fortuna Injunction, preventing the Petitioner from filing any further winding-up petitions while the dispute remains unresolved. The Court recognized that the alleged debt were genuinely disputed, making a winding-up action improper. These orders ensure that RGP is fully protected from abusive or premature insolvency proceedings. Costs were awarded in RGP’s favor.