MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD

MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD

The court found the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the IPCs in issue; the Settlement Agreement did not remove CIPAA jurisdiction over the disputed IPCs and any alleged misinterpretation of the SA or contract terms was a merits issue, not a jurisdictional error under section 15 CIPAA; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and the enforcement application under section 28 CIPAA was allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-220-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os 220); Defendant (os 234): Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os 220); Plaintiff (os 234): China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 October 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-220-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) for Set Aside and Enforcement of an Adjudication Decision / Judgment Disposing of Applications to Set Aside Adjudication Decision (section 15) and to Enforce Adjudication Decision (section 28)
Outcome
Originating Summons WA-24C-220-11/2022 dismissed; Originating Summons WA-24C-234-12/2022 allowed (order in terms)
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement Under CIPAA, Set Aside of Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Interpretation of Settlement Agreement Vs Contract
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Administrative Adjudication Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Under CIPAA Set Aside of Adjudication Decision Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Interpretation of Settlement Agreement Vs Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os 220); Defendant (os 234)

China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os 220); Plaintiff (os 234)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) for Set Aside and Enforcement of an Adjudication Decision / Judgment Disposing of Applications to Set Aside Adjudication Decision (section 15) and to Enforce Adjudication Decision (section 28)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Settlement Agreement superseded the Letter of Award and removed the dispute from CIPAA jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the Settlement Agreement is a construction contract under section 2 CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction in deciding IPCs beyond those covered by the Settlement Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the IPCs in issue; the Settlement Agreement did not remove CIPAA jurisdiction over the disputed IPCs and any alleged misinterpretation of the SA or contract terms was a merits issue, not a jurisdictional error under section 15 CIPAA; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and the enforcement application under section 28 CIPAA was allowed.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons WA-24C-220-11/2022 dismissed; Originating Summons WA-24C-234-12/2022 allowed (order in terms)

Orders

  • OS 220 dismissed with costs
  • OS 234 granted: Order in Terms for prayers 1, 2(a)-(d) and 3 of enclosure 1 thereto