CEMERLANG MEGA SDN BHD HCR BRIDGE MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD

CEMERLANG MEGA SDN BHD HCR BRIDGE MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD

The court dismissed the setting aside application (OS 2) because the respondent's affidavits were inadmissible and defective for lack of personal knowledge and because the adjudicator had considered the conflict/fiduciary allegations, found them raised late and unmeritorious, and there was no denial of natural justice or lack of impartiality; consequently the enforcement application (OS 1) was allowed under s.28 CIPAA and the adjudication decision was enforceable as a High Court judgment.

Citation
wa-24c-20-03/2021 & wa-24c-32-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (in OS 1); Defendant (in OS 2): Cemerlang Mega Sdn Bhd; Defendant (in OS 1); Plaintiff (in OS 2): HCR Bridge Machinery (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 October 2021
Case Number
wa-24c-20-03/2021 & wa-24c-32-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA / Hearing of Originating Summonses; Decision Delivered
Outcome
OS 2 dismissed; OS 1 allowed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Conflict of Interest, Fiduciary Duty, Admissibility of Affidavits
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Contract Law Adjudication Under CIPAA Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Natural Justice +3 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cemerlang Mega Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (in OS 1); Defendant (in OS 2)

HCR Bridge Machinery (M) Sdn Bhd

Defendant (in OS 1); Plaintiff (in OS 2)

Procedural Posture

Enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA / Hearing of Originating Summonses; Decision Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudication decision should be enforced under s.28 CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudication decision should be set aside under s.15 CIPAA on grounds of fraud/bribery, denial of natural justice, lack of independence or impartiality, excess of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether affidavits filed by respondent were admissible given requirement of personal knowledge under Order 41 r.5 Rules of Court 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the setting aside application (OS 2) because the respondent's affidavits were inadmissible and defective for lack of personal knowledge and because the adjudicator had considered the conflict/fiduciary allegations, found them raised late and unmeritorious, and there was no denial of natural justice or lack of impartiality; consequently the enforcement application (OS 1) was allowed under s.28 CIPAA and the adjudication decision was enforceable as a High Court judgment.

Court Disposition

OS 2 dismissed; OS 1 allowed

Orders

  • OS 2 dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 payable by the applicant in OS 2 to the respondent subject to the usual allocator
  • OS 1 allowed; adjudication decision enforced as a judgment pursuant to s.28 CIPAA; costs of RM5,000.00 awarded to the successful party in OS 1 subject to the usual allocator