JALEX SDN BHD CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (M) SDN BHD

JALEX SDN BHD CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (M) SDN BHD

Payment claim met the mandatory s.5(2) requirements by identifying amounts, due dates, contract provisions and works; the abbreviation '(M)' did not misidentify the respondent as the parties and documents demonstrated the same entity; service of adjudication papers complied with s.38 by personal service or delivery at usual business address; therefore the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction and the adjudication decision stands and is enforceable under s.28 CIPAA.

Citation
WA-24C-90-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2): Jalex Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os1); Plaintiff (os2): China Construction Yangtze River (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 September 2022
Case Number
WA-24C-90-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons CIPAA Enforcement and Setting Aside / Final Judgment on Hearing
Outcome
OS 2 dismissed; OS 1 allowed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Payment Claim Requirements S.5, Service of Documents S.38, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision S.15, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision S.28, Company Name Technicality
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Statutory Adjudication Contract Law Adjudication Under CIPAA Payment Claim Requirements S.5 Service of Documents S.38 Setting Aside Adjudication Decision S.15 +2 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jalex Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2)

China Construction Yangtze River (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os1); Plaintiff (os2)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons CIPAA Enforcement and Setting Aside / Final Judgment on Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment claim complied with s.5(2) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the party named was the correct legal entity
  3. 3 Whether adjudication papers were validly served under s.38 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

Payment claim met the mandatory s.5(2) requirements by identifying amounts, due dates, contract provisions and works; the abbreviation '(M)' did not misidentify the respondent as the parties and documents demonstrated the same entity; service of adjudication papers complied with s.38 by personal service or delivery at usual business address; therefore the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction and the adjudication decision stands and is enforceable under s.28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

OS 2 dismissed; OS 1 allowed

Orders

  • OS 2 dismissed
  • OS 1 allowed and adjudication decision enforced