Tuntut Hutang Tertunggak
Dengan Sah
Berdaftar dengan Badan Peguam Malaysia • Ditubuhkan pada 2016 • 1,000+ kes dikendalikan
Dapatkan Penilaian Kes Percuma
Our Services
The Rule & Co team has spent the past ten years helping contractors and subcontractors in Malaysia efficiently handle construction debt disputes, recovery, and enforcement through a variety of methods including:
​​​
-
pre-court negotiations & recovery
-
CIPAA adjudication
-
payment claim drafting
-
adjudication response defence
-
negotiation & settlement
-
court enforcement proceedings
-
winding-up proceedings
​
Time and again, experience has shown us that debtor behaviour shifts significantly once aware the contractor has the support of a legal team. Messages are no longer ignored and petty excuses stop, paving the way for proper discussions and in numerous instances, full settlement.
Who We Serve
-
main contractors
-
subcontractors
-
suppliers
-
developers
Pre-Court Debt Recovery
Understanding the importance of cash flow, we aim to resolve matters as quickly as possible, and our preferred strategy for construction payment disputes is our own pre-court debt recovery process, refined over the years to rapidly assess:
​
-
A debtor's financial stability
-
Legal grounds of a debtor disputing the debt
-
The shortest and least confrontational path to recovery
​
Free from the procedural red tape of court proceedings, we can pursue commercially driven resolutions significantly faster while still being fully compliant with the law so your reputation is never put at risk.
Our Past Cases
After a decade of debt recovery across industries in Malaysia, construction remains one of the most challenging. More often than not, we are approached by honest parties facing not legitimate disputes, but one-sided contracts and intentional payment delays, and below we share two of our most significant cases.​
1. Payment Dispute to LAD Counterclaim
Debt value: RM900,000+
Total recovery: None - deadlocked due to debtor LAD counterclaim
​​
Background
Our client, a contractor, had substantially completed works for a well-known employer but faced persistent payment delays exceeding RM900,000. To prevent further financial strain, the contractor suspended works.
​
Upon appointing us to recover the debt, the employer engaged their own solicitors and rather than addressing the outstanding payments, shifted toward a defensive stance.
​
Escalation
The employer subsequently issued a RM1.5 million LAD (Liquidated Ascertained Damages) counterclaim, alleging project delays caused by the work suspension. What started as a straightforward recovery claim quickly became a potential liability exceeding the original debt.
​
While one-sided and clearly exploited to avoid payment, the contract remained legally binding. Our client was ultimately forced to write off the debt, and we have been cautioning contractors about ensuring contracts are reviewed before beginning work ever since.
2. Use of Statutory Demand
Debt value: RM2,000,000+
Total recovery: Full recovery through structured instalment
Background
Our client, a subcontractor, faced severe cashflow strain from a Klang Valley project where the main contractor owed them RM2 million. Payment was repeatedly delayed, leaving the client unable to cover staff and supplier obligations. A success-fee approach allowed us to commence recovery action, and initial notices and communications were ignored by the debtor.
​
Escalation
The debtor’s operational status made them sensitive to insolvency exposure. A statutory demand under s.466 Companies Act 2016 was issued, triggering immediate negotiations and forcing the debtor to propose a repayment plan.
​
Resolution
The debtor agreed to 36-month instalments with post-dated cheques and a late-payment interest clause. Early attempts to delay payment were countered with enforceable penalties, ensuring compliance. Instalments have cleared on time, securing full recovery without litigation.
3. Section 35 of CIPAA 2012
Debt value: RM800,000
Total recovery: Full recovery through structured instalment
Background
Our client, a subcontractor, was owed RM800,000 for completed works, and the debtor's only excuse for non-payment was that they had not been paid by the main contractor - an all-too-common situation in projects where upstream payment defaults adversely affect parties down the entire chain.
​
Fortunately for our client, Section 35(1) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 renders conditional payment clauses in a contract void even if signed by all parties. Despite repeated explanations that their excuse held no legal merit, the debtor refused to engage and eventually stopped replying entirely.
​
Escalation
As is common in such disputes, the debtor’s operational status and high debt value made insolvency proceedings a go-to strategy. A statutory demand under s.466 Companies Act 2016 was issued, giving them 21 days to settle the debt failing which the company would be deemed unable to pay its debts - at which point we could petition the court for a compulsory winding up.
​
This immediately shifted the tone as the debtor appointed their own legal representative. To prevent unnecessary escalation, we made clear that our client’s objective was recovery, not to destroy the debtor’s business. We also maintained that reliance on conditional payment was illegal under CIPAA.
​
Fortunately, we began moving towards genuine settlement talks and agreed to withhold the winding up petition pending a reasonable proposal.
​
Resolution
Through their solicitor, we negotiated a settlement through instalments. To safeguard our client, we ensured the debtor agreed to a strict repayment schedule, default and acceleration clause, and late payment interest clause.
Ultimately, the settlement agreement was honoured and secured full recovery for our client.
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.
11. Bolehkah kes saya diselesaikan tanpa pergi ke mahkamah? Kebanyakan masanya, memang boleh. Mahkamah adalah pilihan terakhir, dan strategi awal kami ialah pra-mahkamah: surat tuntutan, pengantaraan, penyelesaian berstruktur dan perjanjian bayaran berperingkat. Litigasi hanya dipertimbangkan jika penghutang menolak semua jalan penyelesaian yang munasabah.
12. Adakah mengupah firma guaman menjejaskan hubungan atau reputasi saya dengan penghutang? Tidak jika dikendalikan dengan betul. Kami memastikan komunikasi profesional, berhati-hati dan bebas daripada 'taktik ugutan'.
13. Apakah peluang saya untuk tuntutan hutang yang berjaya? Kami mempertimbangkan tiga faktor utama bagi menilai kadar kejayaan: (i) Sama ada penghutang sudah gulung tikar/bankrap. (ii) Sama ada penghutang ada alasan yang kukuh untuk tidak membayar. (iii) Sama ada penghutang ada aset / wang yang cukup untuk membayar balik hutang. Jika semua faktor di atas positif, kadar kejayaan biasanya tinggi.
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.
