IREKA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 384566-U) TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 532838-W)

IREKA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 384566-U) TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 532838-W)

The adjudicator did not breach s20 CIPAA because the query to the employer was an exercise of statutory inquisitorial power under s25(i) and fell within s20(d); Clauses 19.4 and 19.5 are void conditional payment provisions under s35(1) and in any event errors in applying contract terms do not establish excess of jurisdiction under s15(d); refusal to permit a rejoinder did not breach the second rule of natural justice given statutory procedure and timetable; the Setting Aside originating summons is dismissed, leave to enforce the adjudication decision under s28 CIPAA is granted, and the interim ad hoc stay does not prevent concurrent exercise of remedies under ss29 and 30 by virtue of s31(1).

Citation
BA-24C-81-07/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA BA-24C-89-08/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA BA-24C-94-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: IREKA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.; Respondent/applicant: TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Case Number
BA-24C-81-07/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA BA-24C-89-08/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA BA-24C-94-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cipaa Adjudication Enforcement and Setting Aside) / High Court Judgment Disposing of Three Originating Summonses
Legal Topics
Adjudication (cipaa), Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Confidentiality of Adjudication, Natural Justice (procedural Fairness), Conditional Payment Clauses (voidness), Direct Payment From Principal, Stay of Enforcement
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Administrative Law Adjudication (cipaa) Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Confidentiality of Adjudication +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IREKA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

Applicant/plaintiff

TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cipaa Adjudication Enforcement and Setting Aside) / High Court Judgment Disposing of Three Originating Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator breached s20 CIPAA by disclosing adjudication correspondence to the employer
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether contractual Clauses 19.4 and 19.5 constitute void conditional payment provisions under s35 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator did not breach s20 CIPAA because the query to the employer was an exercise of statutory inquisitorial power under s25(i) and fell within s20(d); Clauses 19.4 and 19.5 are void conditional payment provisions under s35(1) and in any event errors in applying contract terms do not establish excess of jurisdiction under s15(d); refusal to permit a rejoinder did not breach the second rule of natural justice given statutory procedure and timetable; the Setting Aside originating summons is dismissed, leave to enforce the adjudication decision under s28 CIPAA is granted, and the interim ad hoc stay does not prevent concurrent exercise of remedies under ss29 and 30 by virtue of s31(1).