WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (M) SDN BHD

WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (M) SDN BHD

The court held that omission of supporting documents to the notice of adjudication did not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction because s.8 does not mandate their inclusion and any irregularity is cured or manageable under s.26 CIPAA; there was no denial of natural justice; the adjudicator's reasons were adequate for enforcement; accordingly OS 2 (setting aside) was dismissed and OS 1 (enforcement) was allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-70-05/2021 & WA-24C-161-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in OS 1; Defendant in OS 2: WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD; Defendant in OS 1; Plaintiff in OS 2: CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (M) SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 November 2021
Case Number
WA-24C-70-05/2021 & WA-24C-161-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Cross Applications Under CIPAA to Set Aside and to Enforce an Adjudication Decision / Judgment (grounds of Decision) Delivered
Outcome
OS 1 (enforcement) allowed; OS 2 (setting aside) dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice, Statutory Interpretation, Retention and Set Off, Effect of Winding Up Petition
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Under Statutory Scheme Civil Procedure Company Law Adjudication Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Jurisdiction of Adjudicator +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff in OS 1; Defendant in OS 2

CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (M) SDN BHD

Defendant in OS 1; Plaintiff in OS 2

Procedural Posture

Cross Applications Under CIPAA to Set Aside and to Enforce an Adjudication Decision / Judgment (grounds of Decision) Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction due to defective notice (non‑inclusion of supporting documents under s.8 CIPAA)
  2. 2 Whether there was a denial of natural justice in the adjudication process
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with procedural requirements nullifies the adjudicator's decision or is cured as an irregularity under s.26 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that omission of supporting documents to the notice of adjudication did not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction because s.8 does not mandate their inclusion and any irregularity is cured or manageable under s.26 CIPAA; there was no denial of natural justice; the adjudicator's reasons were adequate for enforcement; accordingly OS 2 (setting aside) was dismissed and OS 1 (enforcement) was allowed.

Court Disposition

OS 1 (enforcement) allowed; OS 2 (setting aside) dismissed

Orders

  • OS 1 allowed: order to enforce the adjudication decision as sought; costs awarded to WL in the sum of RM5,000.00 subject to the usual allocator
  • OS 2 dismissed: CCYR's application to set aside the adjudication decision dismissed; costs awarded to WL in the sum of RM5,000.00 subject to the usual allocator