合法债务与逾期发票追讨服务
马来西亚律师公会注册 • 成立2016 • 处理逾千宗债务案件
获取免费案件评估
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.
债务追偿案例
常见问题解答
1. 债务追收/催收的流程是如何进行的？ 我们采用完全合法的庭外及法庭程序追讨债务，包括：催款通知书、调解、协商、和解协议、法律诉讼、扣押令程序、财产查封与变卖令、判决债务人传票令、破产/清盘程序。 我们专注于采用成本最低且最有效的方法，确保在法律框架内快速、经济地实现债务回收。
2. 债务追讨流程需要多长时间？ 对于我们的庭外追讨服务，通常需要约8周时间才能获得债务人的回应。若对方始终不予回应，我们将免费将案件文件退还给您。 若进入法庭程序，具体时限将根据案件复杂程度而定。在您决定是否继续推进前，我们将提供切实可行的评估方案。
3. 你们的收费结构是怎样的？ 我们的收费结构符合律师公会规定。我们采用成本效益高的收费模式，确保费用与您获得的成果成正比。 如需准确报价，请通过WhatsApp联系我们进行免费案件评估。 在您决定委托前，我们将清晰说明 适用费用及可选方案。
4. 是否有最低债务金额限制？ 我们受理的债务案件金额可低至5,000令吉。欢迎联系我们进行免费案件评估。
5. 我需要准备哪些文件？ 只需提供未偿债务的简要说明（注明总索赔金额）及债务人联系方式即可启动流程。若需更详细的文件，我们将另行通知。 即使文件不完整也无需担心。 我们曾成功处理过大量文件有限的案件。每笔债权都值得评估——切勿因缺少正式合同就放弃追讨。
6. 你们的追偿方式是否合法？ 绝对合法。我们是受马来西亚律师公会监管的律师事务所。 我们并非“债务催收机构”。所有追偿手段均符合法律规定、专业规范且具有法律效力。我们始终致力于维护您的合法权益，同时保障您的商业信誉。
7. 我会收到案件进展的更新吗？ 我们将通过WhatsApp直接与负责您案件的律师沟通，向您提供所有重要进展。我们以高效响应和勤勉跟进为荣。
8. 我最终会被卷入诉讼吗？ 未必。多数纠纷都能快速得到验证。我们会督促债务人提交书面抗辩——若其抗辩理由薄弱或纯属拖延战术，我们可通过调解在早期阶段予以化解。 全面诉讼是最后手段，而非首选途径。
9. 我之前尝试过其他公司/催收机构，但毫无结果。这次为什么会不同？ 许多催收机构依赖电话骚扰和施压手段，这些对债务人而言易于忽视，且不具法律效力。 部分公司未经可行性评估就贸然立案，不仅让您承担不必要的预付费用，更无法保证追偿结果。 我们的优势在于：专注于最快捷、最具成本效益的法律追偿途径，并常以法律后果为后盾推动快速和解。这能避免费用和时间的浪费。
10. 债务人不在本州或身处海外——你们能处理 吗？ 当然可以。 我们处理过大量跨境案件，将指导您采取最具成本效益的处理方式。
11. 我的案件可以在不进入法庭的情况下解决吗？ 当然可以。**法庭诉讼始终应作为最后的手段。**我们的首要方式是诉前处理，包括： 律师函（催款函）、调解、策略性升级、结构化和解方案，以及具有法律约束力的协议。 许多案件都会在这一阶段解决——速度快、成本低，并且具备高度隐私性。 只有在债务人拒绝所有合理的和解方案时，我们才会考虑提起诉讼。
12. 聘请律师事务所是否会损害我与债务人的关系或声誉？ 若处理得当则不会。我们始终保持专业、谨慎的沟通方式，杜绝任何非法的“胁迫手段”。 我们的处理方式注重寻求解决方案而非不当威胁。这既能维护您的商业信誉，在多数情况下还能让您在问题解决后继续开展业务往来。
13. 我的追讨成功几率有多大？ 评估成功率时，我们通常考虑以下三个因素： (i) 债务人是否仍具备 偿付能力；或已进入破产程序。 (ii) 债务人是否对您提出有效的抗辩/反诉。 (iii) 债务人是否拥有足够的资产/现金偿还债务。 若上述因素均呈积极态势，追偿成功率通常较高。