Tuntut Hutang Tertunggak
Dengan Sah
Berdaftar dengan Badan Peguam Malaysia • Ditubuhkan pada 2016 • 1,000+ kes dikendalikan
Dapatkan Penilaian Kes Percuma
Suing a Party That Owes You Money
When a debtor refuses to negotiate and the debt amount justifies it, a court order may be the only way to recover what is owed. Whether the debtor is a company, business partner or friend, we handle every stage of the litigation process:
-
Letter of demand: A final written demand, usually required before filing a claim
-
Writ of summons: We file a writ of summons and statement of claim in the appropriate court and serve it on the debtor
-
Judgement in default: If the debtor fails to enter an appearance or file a defence, we apply for judgement without a trial
-
Summary judgement: If the debtor files a defence that raises no genuine issue for trial, we apply for summary judgement, also without a trial
-
Trial: If the debtor raises a genuine defence, we represent you through to trial
If the court's judgment still isn't enough to compel payment, we help you pursue execution proceedings to enforce it.
Enforcing a Judgement Debt
If judgement is obtained but the debtor still doesn't pay, we take execution proceedings to enforce it. The main modes of execution in Malaysia are:
-
Garnishee proceedings: Freezes money in the debtor's bank account and directs the bank to pay it to you
-
Writs of seizure and sale: Court bailiffs seize the debtor's movable and immovable assets to be sold at public auction
-
Judgment debtor summons: Compels the debtor to attend court for examination on their financial means
-
Bankruptcy or winding-up: For individuals and corporate debtors who meet their respective debt thresholds, this uses the threat of insolvency / bankruptcy to pressure them into settling the debt
We choose the mode of execution based on the debtor's circumstances so enforcement costs are spent where they're most likely to recover your money.
Assessing Your Case Suitability
Not every debt is worth taking to court asa judgement against a debtor with no assets or income is practically worthless. Before recommending litigation, we assess:
-
whether the debtor has assets, income or bank accounts worth pursuing
-
the strength of your evidence and any defence the debtor is likely to raise
-
whether the likely recovery justifies the cost of going to court
Summary & Default Judgements
In certain circumstances, we can apply for a court judgement without having to go through a full trial, saving clients potentially months of proceedings and legal costs:
-
Judgment in default of appearance: If the debtor fails to enter an appearance after being served with the writ of summons
-
Judgment in default of defence: If the debtor fails to file a defence in time
-
Summary judgment: if the debtor files a defence that raises no triable issue
A default and summary judgement are both enforceable in the same way as a regular court order, so if obtained, we can move straight to execution proceedings if the debtor still refuses to pay.
Always Open to Out-of-Court Settlements
Filing a lawsuit doesn't close the door on settlement. In fact, a court claim is often what finally brings a debtor to the table, and a debt can be settled at any stage, from the day the writ is served to after judgment has been obtained. Judges also frequently direct parties to mediation before trial, and a negotiated outcome can be faster, cheaper and more certain than waiting for the court's decision.
Where a settlement is reached, we record it as a consent judgment wherever possible, so if the debtor defaults, you can move straight to enforcement.
Our Past Cases
While we always recommend pre-court negotiations, some debtors are simply unwilling to discuss matters. In such cases, taking them to court, followed by a well-chosen enforcement method, can be the only way to recover what a creditor is owed. Below, we share some of our more significant victories.
1. Using a JDS to Threaten Imprisonment
Debt value: RM180,000
Total recovery: RM180,000 (100%), paid in one lump sum
Background
Our client, a business owner, was owed RM180,000 for services rendered. The debtor ignored our notice of demand, then failed to enter an appearance or file a defence to our writ of summons, and we obtained judgement in default for the full amount.
As is often the case, enforcing the judgment proved to be the real challenge. A garnishee order found very little in the debtor's bank account, a writ of seizure and sale found the business premises empty, and the debtor's audited accounts declared no assets.
On paper, the debtor had nothing to enforce against.
Escalation
We turned to a judgment debtor summons (JDS) under the Debtors Act 1957. Unlike other modes of execution, a JDS doesn't depend on finding assets. It compels the debtor to attend court and be examined on their means.
Compelled by the court, the debtor finally appeared, and was ordered to pay RM10,000 a month toward the judgment debt. After paying the first instalment, the debtor defaulted again.
Resolution
Because the JDS had produced a court order to pay, the debtor's default was now a breach of that order. We filed a Form 178 committal application, asking the court to imprison the debtor for non-compliance. Faced with the real prospect of jail, the debtor paid the full RM180,000 in one lump sum, a day before the committal hearing.
2. A RM17 Million Debt Recovery from a GLC
Debt value: RM17,000,000 (principal + interest)
Total recovery: RM17,000,000 in full, settled through a consent order
Background
In 2017, a businessman approached us holding a RM17,000,000 judgment against a koperasi linked to a government entity. His previous lawyer had obtained judgment but taken no steps to enforce it. Five years later, with only one year left before the 6-year enforcement period expired.
We immediately applied to extend the enforcement period, a discretionary relief the courts don't grant lightly. The koperasi's lawyers opposed it aggressively, but after weeks of hearings, we succeeded.
We then moved quickly on to standard enforcement.
Escalation
An initial garnishee order recovered RM250,000 from their known bank accounts, while a writ of seizure and sale on its office yielded only around RM10,000 in old furniture and electronics. A later anonymous tip revealed previously undisclosed bank accounts allowing us to garnish a further RM500,000, but still far below the total outstanding amount.
Meanwhile, we issued judgment debtor summonses against its officers, who dodged service and filed applications to stall for months.
Reviewing the koperasi's audited accounts, we found it held shares in several profitable private joint-venture companies. Seizing private company shares is rare in Malaysia, with little precedent to follow, but possible. We applied for a writ of seizure over the shares, guided the court through the process, and successfully attached the koperasi's equity.
Resolution
Faced with losing its most valuable assets, the koperasi agreed to a consent order for full settlement of RM17,000,000, paid through post-dated cheques. After nearly 4 years of enforcement, a judgement that had sat idle for 5 years was turned into payment and remains one of our proudest cases.
3. Our RM350,000 Ex-Parte Garnishee Order
Debt value: RM350,000
Total recovery: RM350,000 (100%) in 4 to 5 months of our letter of demand
Background
In 2016, we were engaged by a high-profile individual on a luxury condo joint venture with an expected gross development value of around RM500 million. Our legal fees of RM350,000 were deferred, on the assurance that they would be paid once the project launched.
The joint venture later collapsed after its financing fell through, and despite earlier assurances that our fees would still be honoured, months passed with no payment or communication.
Escalation
We issued a letter of demand, and in response, the debtor handed over a cheque for RM350,000, which was later dishonoured. With no further word from the debtor, we filed a writ of summons and obtained judgement in default when the debtor failed to enter an appearance or file a defence.
Resolution
The dishonoured cheque gave us exactly what we needed: the debtor's bank details. We applied for a garnishee order against the debtor's bank, and crucially, the application was made ex parte, without notice to the debtor, so there was no opportunity to move the funds.
The bank complied with the court order and released the full RM350,000, with no need for further enforcement proceedings.
Kes Terpenting Kami
Soalan Lazim
1. Apakah proses tuntutan hutang Rule & Co? Kami menggunakan kaedah pra-mahkamah dan mahkamah yang sah untuk menuntuta hutang; termasuk notis tuntutan, pengantaraan, rundingan, perjanjian penyelesaian, peningkatan kepada litigasi, prosiding garnishee, penyitaan dan penjualan harta, saman penghutang penghakiman, prosiding kebankrapan/penggulungan. Kami memberi tumpuan kepada kaedah yang paling berkesan dengan kos pendahuluan yang minimum kepada anda.
2. Berapa lamakah proses tuntutan hutang? Tuntutan hutang pra-mahkamah kami biasanya memerlukan sekitar lapan minggu untuk mendapatkan maklum balas daripada penghutang. Jika mereka kekal tidak mengendahkan kami, fail tersebut akan dikembalikan kepada anda tanpa sebarang caj lanjut. Untuk prosiding mahkamah, garis masa berbeza bergantung pada kerumitan kes. Kami akan memberi penilaian realistik sebelum anda memutuskan sama ada untuk meneruskan.
3. Apakah struktur yuran Rule & Co? Kami menggunakan model yuran yang mematuhi peraturan Majlis Peguam dan memastikan kos sejajar dengan nilai tuntutan anda. Untuk sebut harga yang tepat, hubungi kami di WhatsApp untuk penilaian kes percuma. Kami akan terangkan yuran yang dikenakan dan pilihan yang anda ada sebelum anda meneruskan.
4. Apa jumlah hutang minimum untuk lantik Rule & Co? Kami sedia mengambil kes melibatkan hutang serendah RM 5,000.
5. Apakah dokumen yang perlu saya sediakan? Rumusan hutang tertunggak anda menunjukkan jumlah keseluruhan dan butiran penghutang. Kami akan menasihati anda jika dokumentasi yang lebih terperinci diperlukan. Jangan risau jika dokumen tidak lengkap. Kami telah menyelesaikan banyak kes dengan dokumentasi yang terhad!
6. Adakah kaedah tuntutan Rule & Co sah di sisi undang-undang? Ya, kaedah kami adalah 100% sah. Kami adalah firma guaman yang dikawal selia oleh Majlis Peguam Malaysia. Kami bukan 'agensi pengukip hutang.' Semua kaedah kami adalah profesional dan boleh dikuatkuasakan di mahkamah.
7. Adakah saya akan dikemas kini tentang perkembangan kes saya? Ya, anda akan dimaklumkan melalui WhatsApp dengan peguam yang mengendalikan kes anda.
8. Adakah saya perlu membawa penghutang ke mahkamah? Tak semestinya. Kebanyakan kes tuntutan hutang boleh dinilai dengan cepat. Kami akan desak penghutang untuk mengemukakan alasan bertulis, dan jika ia lemah atau jelas taktik penangguhan, kami menanganinya dengan proses pengantaraan. Perbicaraan penuh adalah pilihan terakhir, bukan langkah pertama.
9. Saya dah cuba firma lain tapi tiada hasil. Mengapa Rule & Co. berbeza? Banyak pengutip hutang bergantung sepenuhnya pada panggilan berkali-kali yang mudah diabaikan oleh penghutang kerana tiada akibat. Ada firma membuka kes tanpa menilai peluang tuntutan agar boleh mengecaj kos pendahuluan tanpa perlu risau jika tuntutan akan berjaya. Di Rule & Co, kami fokus pada kaedah tuntutan undang-undang yang paling cepat dan kos efektif untuk setiap kes supaya masa dan wang anda (dan kami!) tidak terbazir.
10. Penghutang ada di negeri atau negara lain, bolehkah Rule & Co kendalikannya? Ya, boleh. Kami telah mengendalikan banyak kes merentas sempadan dan akan membimbing anda tentang cara paling kos efektif untuk meneruskan.
Penilaian Kes PERCUMA
Dapatkan penilaian kes percuma.
Whatsapp kami di +6 010 202 8095
E-mel kami di rudi@rulecolaw.com
Atau isi borang bersebelahan dan kami akan berhubung.