Geo Hill Construction Sdn Bhd v Pesat Bumi Sdn Bhd (WA-28NCC-468-04/2025)

These Grounds are largely based on and are a follow up to my Grounds dated 27.12.2025 in these proceedings (see Geo Hill Construction Sdn Bhd v Pesat Bumi Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 4627).

On 6.12.2024, Geo Hill served a statutory notice (“Statutory Demand”) issued pursuant to s. 466 of the Companies Act, 2016 (“CA 2016”) on the Respondent demanding the sum of RM15,429,864.05 (“Outstanding Sum”) claimed by the Petitioner as at 6.12.2024.

The Statutory Demand is based on Adjudication Decision 5422 and Adjudication Decision 5465 both dated 20.11.2024, obtained under the Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) (collectively, the “Adjudication Decisions”).

The Respondent failed to pay the Outstanding Sum within the 21 days prescribed in the Statutory Demand. As such, the Petitioner filed the Winding Up Petition (Encl 1) on 29.4.2025. The Petition is founded upon the Statutory Demand which in turn, is based on the Adjudication Decisions.

On 21.11.2025, 3 applications were fixed before me being Encl 1 (the Petition to Wind Up the Respondent), Encl 12 (an application by the Respondent to stay Encl 1) and Encl 68 (an application by various creditors opposing Encl 1 (“Opposing Creditors”), to dismiss or stay Encl 1).

The Respondent resisted the Petition on various grounds, which I did not deal with given the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bludream City Development Sdn Bhd v Pembinaan Bina Bumi Sdn Bhd [2024] 4 MLJ 67. The Court of Appeal held that for the purposes of a winding up petition, a CIPAA award is indisputable. I am bound by Bluedream (supra), which I followed in 2 previous decisions, being Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd v Embition Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 199 and LLC Infra Sdn Bhd v VKPT Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 345.

Notwithstanding Blue Dream, I gave Counsel for the Respondent an opportunity to approach the Court of Appeal to try to persuade the Court of Appeal to reconsider Bluedream (supra).

I was told that such an attempt failed. On 29.10.2025 the Court of Appeal, following Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd [1944] KB 718, refused to depart from Bluedream (supra). No stay was sought.

In the circumstances, as Encl 1 was premised on the Adjudication Decisions under CIPAA which are deemed indisputable, the Petitioner is entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding up order, see the Privy Council in Sian Participation Corp (in liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd (Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16 at para 35 which I also followed in Embition (supra) at paras 88 and 89.

As such, I granted the Petition (prayer 11(i) of Encl 1). In this respect, there is an error in my Judgment dated 27.12.2025 at para 12, which states that an order was made under para (i) of Encl 2.

As I had granted Encl 1, it would follow that Encl 68 (to stay Encl 1) should be dismissed as being academic. However, due to an oversight an express order dismissing Encl 68 was not entered on 21.11.2025. As such, on 18.12.2025, and for the avoidance of doubt, I expressly made an order dismissing Encl 68 to take effect on 18.12.2025.

This was to allow the Opposing Creditors a chance to appeal Encl 68 and to be heard on the appeal against the grant of the winding up order under Encl 1 on 21.11.2025. Otherwise, they may be precluded from appealing, see Khairy Jamaluddin v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim [2018] 6 MLJ 222 at paras 33 and 34. Dated the 9th day of January 2026 ...........................tt............................ YA TUAN SAHERAN SUHENDRAN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 11) (INSOLVENCY 2) OF KUALA LUMPUR IN THE TERRITORY, MALAYSIA Counsel for the Petitioner: Solicitors: Hazelyn Khoo Hui Ying Messrs. Lee & Poh Partnership (Kuala Lumpur) Counsel for the Opposing Creditors: Solicitors: See Kwong Yan Messrs. See Kwong Yan (Petaling Jaya) Counsel for the Respondent: Solicitors: Ting Lee Ping Messrs. Ringo Low & Associates (Petaling Jaya) Case References: • Bludream City Development Sdn Bhd v Pembinaan Bina Bumi Sdn Bhd [2024] 4 MLJ 67 • Geo Hill Construction Sdn Bhd v Pesat Bumi Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 4627 • Khairy Jamaluddin v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim [2018] 6 MLJ 222 • Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd v Embition Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 199 • LLC Infra Sdn Bhd v VKPT Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 345 • Sian Participation Corp (in liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd (Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16 • Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd [1944] KB 718 Legislation References: • Companies Act, 2016 (“CA 2016”) • Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) Decision Date: 18th December 2025