You Lost the Adjudication. You Can’t Stall the Winding Up.
You Lost the Adjudication. You Can’t Stall the Winding Up.
High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur | Boilermaster Sdn Bhd v Tandex Chemicals Sdn Bhd [2026] CLJU 667
Losing a CIPAA adjudication is expensive. Losing the subsequent enforcement application is worse. But here is what some parties still attempt after both: file for an injunction to stop the winning party from doing anything about it.
In Boilermaster, the High Court addressed that attempt directly — and dismissed it with the kind of language that leaves little room for misunderstanding. The plaintiff’s application was described, in the judge’s own words, as misconceived. The appeal to the Court of Appeal that followed was noted, equally directly, as despite the frivolity of its case.
The message the court sent is one the construction industry needs to hear clearly: a valid, enforced adjudication decision is not a debt you can keep disputing. It is a debt you pay.
What Happened
Tandex Chemicals commenced CIPAA adjudication proceedings against Boilermaster in April 2024. The adjudicator ruled in Tandex’s favour in December 2024. Boilermaster’s application to set the decision aside failed. Its stay application was dismissed. The High Court then allowed Tandex’s enforcement application in November 2025. Boilermaster appealed to the Court of Appeal — but did not obtain a stay from the Court of Appeal either.
At that point, Tandex served a statutory demand under section 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 for RM3,388,089.00 — the prelude to a winding up petition. Boilermaster’s response was not to pay. It was to file two injunction applications: a Fortuna injunction to restrain the winding up petition, and the present quia timet injunction to stop Tandex from enforcing the enforcement order and from filing winding up proceedings at all.
The High Court dealt with the quia timet application first.
What Is a Quia Timet Injunction?
A quia timet injunction — Latin for “since he fears” — is precautionary relief. It is designed to prevent an actionable wrong before it occurs, not to delay a legitimate remedy after it has already been earned. To succeed, an applicant must show a sufficiently real and imminent risk of an actionable wrong, and grave likely consequences if that wrong materialises.
The critical word is actionable. The injunction exists to stop something unlawful from happening. It is not a mechanism for stopping something lawful simply because the consequences are inconvenient.
Why the Application Failed
The court’s analysis was straightforward. There was no actionable wrong.
Tandex had won the adjudication. The High Court had enforced it. The stay had been refused at every stage. In those circumstances, Tandex was perfectly entitled — legally, procedurally, and commercially — to serve a statutory demand and file a winding up petition. That is exactly what the enforcement regime under CIPAA is designed to produce. A party that has exhausted its challenges and still not paid cannot then seek an injunction to prevent the winning party from using the very remedies the law provides.
The court drew on a consistent line of Court of Appeal authority to make the position unambiguous. In Likas Bay Precinct v Bina Puri [2019], the Court of Appeal confirmed that a party holding an adjudication decision may present a winding up petition without first registering the decision as a court judgment. In Sime Darby Energy Solution v RZH Setia Jaya [2021], the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Fortuna injunction will not be granted to restrain such a petition. In Bludream City Development v Pembinaan Bina Bumi [2024], those principles were reaffirmed. Two earlier High Court decisions that had suggested otherwise — ASM Development v Econpile [2020] and Setia Fontaines v Pro Tech Enterprise [2023] — were expressly overruled.
The debt, once adjudicated and enforced without a stay, ceases to be disputable in winding up proceedings. That is the point. The adjudication decision has already been independently assessed by a neutral third party. It has survived challenge at the High Court level. Where a debtor still disputes the underlying debt — as Boilermaster did, with arbitration proceedings on foot — that dispute belongs in the arbitration, not in an injunction application designed to stop enforcement. The two can run in parallel. What cannot happen is using the pending arbitration as a shield against enforcement of a decision that has already been upheld.
The court also placed this within CIPAA’s broader legislative purpose: to facilitate regular and timely payment, provide speedy dispute resolution, and give construction creditors real remedies. Allowing a debtor to stack injunction applications and stall indefinitely would hollow out everything the Act was designed to achieve.
Three Things to Take Away
A CIPAA adjudication decision is immediately enforceable and can ground a winding up petition. There is no requirement to first register the decision as a court judgment before serving a statutory demand or filing a petition. Once the decision is in hand, the enforcement route is open.
A quia timet injunction cannot be used to pause legitimate debt recovery. The remedy exists to prevent unlawful conduct — not to delay a creditor from exercising rights the court has already upheld. Where the enforcement order stands and no stay has been obtained, there is nothing unlawful to restrain.
Failing to obtain a stay leaves the enforcement order fully operative. A debtor who wishes to halt execution pending appeal must secure a stay from the Court of Appeal. Filing fresh injunction applications in the High Court while an appeal is pending — without a stay — does not achieve the same result. It generates costs, consumes time, and, as this decision demonstrates, produces a result the court is prepared to describe without diplomatic softening.
A Final Word
The construction industry runs on cash flow, and CIPAA was built to protect it. A party that wins an adjudication, enforces it through the courts, and still cannot collect is exactly the situation the Act was designed to address. Boilermaster confirms that the courts will not allow injunctive relief to become a mechanism for frustrating that outcome.
If you are holding an adjudication decision that is not being paid, or if you are on the receiving end of an enforcement order and considering your options, the time to get clear legal advice is before the statutory demand arrives — not after.
The content of this article does not constitute legal advice. It is intended to provide general information. Specific advice should be sought in relation to your particular circumstances.
Andrew Heng Yeng Hoe | Senior Partner | andrew@zainmegatmurad.com | +6016 222 8412
Zain Megat & Murad D2-5-1 to D2-5-3A, Block D, Solaris Dutamas No.1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur +603 6207 9331 | zmm@zainmegatmurad.com
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.