The winding-up action is to be stayed pending determination of the Petitioner’s claim at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. FINDINGS OF THIS COURT [6] It is trite law that notwithstanding the wording of section 466(1)(a) of the CA 2016, there is no strict requirement to serve the Statutory Notice at the registered address of the Respondent. See the case of Ann Joo Metal Sdn Bhd v Pembenaan MY Chahaya Sdn Bhd (2000) 5 MLJ 708, where the court held as follows: “In Cymun Development Sdn Bhd v Supermax Sdn Bhd (1995) 2 MLJ 233, a notice of demand was sent to the business address but was received by the respondent, who had made an appearance to defend the petition. In other words, those that do not cause substantial injustice incapable of being remedied by any order or court, would not invalidate a notice of demand.” [7] The Respondent in its Affidavit in Opposition (“AIO”) confirmed that it had received a copy of the sealed Petition. Since both the Statutory Notice and the Petition were served at the business address of the Respondent and the Respondent was able to file the AIO, I find that there is no substantive injustice caused to the Respondent which would nullify service of the Statutory Notice or the Petition. See section 582(1) of the CA 2016, which stipulates that any irregularity or deficiencies of notice would not invalidate any proceedings unless the court is of the view that substantial injustice has been caused that could not be remedied by any order of the court. S/N rFzIkErDq0P2st3qewkHQ [8] The second ground by the Respondent is that the Petitioner is not a “creditor” and that the Petitioner has not proven that it suffered any damages from the non-performance of the Sales Agreement by the Respondent. I agree with the Petitioner’s submission that the Petitioner’s losses had been contemplated by the Respondent when it sent an email dated 04.01.2022 to the Petitioner requesting the Petitioner to “cap” any compensation at USD2 million. [9] I find this open email to be a clear and unequivocal admission by the Respondent that it knew the Petitioner had suffered damages exceeding USD2 million. Thus, the USD2 million is an admitted debt by the Respondent to the Petitioner. In the Federal Court case of Yam Kong Seng & Anor v Yee Weng Kai (2014) 4 MLJ 478, the court held: “… the SMS was a reply to the first appellant’s demand of payment of the debt and the interest due and owing to the appellants. The SMS, though short, reflected the intention of the parties clearly and unambiguously.” [10] I find the Respondent’s email of 04.01.2021 amounts to an admission of the “debt” of at least USD2 million due to the Respondent’s intention to limit its liability to not more than USD2 million: [11] The Respondent in its AIO and submissions contends that there is an arbitration clause in the Sales Agreement. Thus, the winding-up S/N rFzIkErDq0P2st3qewkHQ proceedings ought to be stayed pending the determination of the Petitioner’s claim by the Singapore Arbitration Centre. [12] On this issue, I agree with the Petitioner’s submission that the arbitration clause does not prevent the Petitioner from pursuing winding-up proceedings since the “debt” has been admitted, making the “debt” not a “disputed” debt. I find support in the decision of the Court in the case of NFC Labuan Shipleasing I Ltd v Semua Chemical Shipping Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJ 2 900 where it was held: “(52) The winding-up petition is not concerned with any question regarding the Bareboat Charters.