BOILERMASTER SDN BHD v TANDEX CHEMICALS SDN BHD

wa-24ncc-712-12-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 3 February 2026 • WA-24NCC-712-12/2025 • 15 min read

8 cases cited (2 SG, 6 foreign)

Catchwords

Application for Quia Timet injunction-Enforcement Order-obtained by the defendant pursuant to section 282 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)-Enforcement Application of the Adjudicator’s Decision-appeal to the Court of Appeal -Statutory Notice under section 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016-Stay of Execution of the High Court Decision-Fortuna Injunction-Injunctions are typically awarded where a party has already suffered a wrong-Injunctions can also be granted before a party's rights have been infringed on the basis that they fear that a wrong will be committed if an order is not made. This category of precautionary or anticipatory injunction is historically known as a quia timet injunction. The Latin phrase ‘quia timet’ means in essence ‘since he fears’-... A quia timet ('since he fears') injunction is one granted to prevent the occurrence of an actionable wrong or to prevent repetition of an actionable wrong in the future-…, there must be a ' sufficiently real and imminent risk ' of a tort being committed to justify quia timet relief-strong probability that, unless restrained by injunction, the defence will act in breach of the claimant's rights'-graver the likely consequences and the risk of wrongdoing, the more the court will be reluctant to consider the application as premature-A party who has an Adjudication Decision made under the CIPAA in its favour is entitled to present a winding-up petition based on the Adjudication Decision. There is no requirement to register the Adjudication Decision in court prior to presenting the petition-A party who has an Adjudication Decision made under the CIPAA in its favour is entitled to present a winding-up petition based on the Adjudication Decision. The court will not grant a Fortuna injunction to restrain the presentation of the winding-up petition-The High Court decisions in ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] MLRHU 1417, HC, and Setia Fontaines Sdn Bhd v Pro Tech Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2023] MLRHU 495, HC, which held that a party is not entitled to present a winding-up petition based on an Adjudication Decision are no longer good law-the Court of Appeal in Likas Bay (supra) pronounced in no uncertain terms without qualification that a party who is armed with an AD in its favour would be entitled to present a winding-up petition based on the award-With respect, to our minds, this does not equate to entitling the party ordered to make payment under the AD to an order to restrain the successful party from presenting a winding-up petition as the former has a statutory right to challenge the statutory notice or petition before the winding-up court-] The first principle laid down in that case in that an injunction of that nature may be granted by court where the presentation of the petition might produce irreparable damage to the company and where the proposed petition has no chance of success-the applicant must satisfy both limbs of the principle-(i)the intended petition has no chance of success, as a matter of law as well as a matter of fact; and-(ii)the presentation of such petition (which has no chance of success) might produce irreparable damage to the company-As long as the debt cannot be disputed, it is not consequence whether or not it will cause irreparable damage to the company, if presented. A valid and enforceable judgment of court as in the present case, (unless set aside or stayed) cannot be considered a disputed debt. The law is settled on this point.

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (4)

Nandrajog Firm Yuan Law Chambers Firm Dinesh Nandrajog Counsel Defendant Joshua Cheong Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

BOILERMASTER Sdn Bhd Applicant TANDEX CHEMICALS Sdn Bhd Respondent

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

s 466(1)(a)

Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012

s 282

Cases Cited (8)

SG (1)

[2016] SGHC 179

SLR (1)

[2020] 1 SLR 279

UK (1)

[2023] EWHC 1485

MY (5)

[2004] 5 MLRH 615 [2007] 3 CLJ 295 [2007] 3 MLJ 316 [2008] 1 MLRH 491 [2019] 3 CLJ 499

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24ncc-712-12-2025)