Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd S&S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd

Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd S&S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd

The adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor act in excess of jurisdiction by seeking clarifications and considering the material and clarification letters; those acts were a proper exercise of s25 CIPAA powers and the matters considered fell within the scope of the adjudication (including RIPC 21); although certain declaratory prayers in OS16 were defective for failure to cite the Specific Relief Act s41 in the intitulement, on the substantive merits the setting aside application failed and was dismissed; accordingly the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed and Order 69 r5 requirements were satisfied.

Citation
WA-24C-23-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (setting Aside) / Defendant (enforcement): S & S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd; Respondent (setting Aside) / Applicant (enforcement): Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 July 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-23-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonss Under CIPAA 2012 and Rules of Court 2012 (setting Aside Adjudication Decision and Enforcement) / Hearing and Grounds of Judgment (final Disposition)
Outcome
Setting aside application (OS 16) dismissed with costs; enforcement application (OS 23) allowed in terms (Order 69 r5 complied).
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement Under S28 CIPAA, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Stay of Adjudication Decision Under S16 CIPAA, Breach of Natural Justice, Excess of Jurisdiction, Interest on Late Payment, Back Charges, Order 7 R 2(1 A) Intitulement Requirements, Statutory Demand (s465/s466 Companies Act 2016)
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Company Insolvency and Statutory Demand Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Under S28 CIPAA Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Stay of Adjudication Decision Under S16 CIPAA Breach of Natural Justice +5 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S & S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd

Applicant (setting Aside) / Defendant (enforcement)

Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent (setting Aside) / Applicant (enforcement)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonss Under CIPAA 2012 and Rules of Court 2012 (setting Aside Adjudication Decision and Enforcement) / Hearing and Grounds of Judgment (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudication decision dated 25.01.2023 should be set aside for breach of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the adjudication claim and reply and by seeking clarifications
  3. 3 Whether back charges and interest were properly considered and decided by the adjudicator

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor act in excess of jurisdiction by seeking clarifications and considering the material and clarification letters; those acts were a proper exercise of s25 CIPAA powers and the matters considered fell within the scope of the adjudication (including RIPC 21); although certain declaratory prayers in OS16 were defective for failure to cite the Specific Relief Act s41 in the intitulement, on the substantive merits the setting aside application failed and was dismissed; accordingly the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed and Order 69 r5 requirements were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Setting aside application (OS 16) dismissed with costs; enforcement application (OS 23) allowed in terms (Order 69 r5 complied).

Orders

  • OS 16 dismissed with costs (both setting aside and stay applications)
  • Found prayers 1-4 in OS 16 defective for failure to cite Specific Relief Act 1950 s41 in intitulement