GD BUILDERS SDN BHD CTY FACADE BUILDER SDN BHD

GD BUILDERS SDN BHD CTY FACADE BUILDER SDN BHD

The High Court held that the adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction under CIPAA, did not breach natural justice or exceed jurisdiction in admitting and deciding the claimed items after evaluating evidence, the adjudication award stands and is enforceable under s28 CIPAA, and the application to set aside the adjudication decision is dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-24C-216-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Claimant / Plaintiff: CTY FAÇADE BUILDER SDN BHD; Respondent / Defendant: GD BUILDERS SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 February 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-216-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Adjudication Enforcement and Setting Aside (construction) / High Court Judgment on Originating Summons Applications to Set Aside and to Enforce Adjudication Decision
Outcome
Application to set aside adjudication decision (OS 216) dismissed with costs; application to enforce adjudication decision (OS 202) granted; Order in terms of prayers 1,2,3(i)-(xiii) and 4 of enclosure 1 of OS 202 granted.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice, Performance Bond, Retention Sum, Counterclaim and Set Off, Liquidated Damages, Stay Pending Arbitration
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Arbitration Law Administrative Law Adjudication Under CIPAA Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision +7 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CTY FAÇADE BUILDER SDN BHD

Claimant / Plaintiff

GD BUILDERS SDN BHD

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Adjudication Enforcement and Setting Aside (construction) / High Court Judgment on Originating Summons Applications to Set Aside and to Enforce Adjudication Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide delay and extension of time
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator erred or breached natural justice in allowing uncertified progress claims (Nos.2 and 3)
  3. 3 Whether CTY lawfully terminated contract

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction under CIPAA, did not breach natural justice or exceed jurisdiction in admitting and deciding the claimed items after evaluating evidence, the adjudication award stands and is enforceable under s28 CIPAA, and the application to set aside the adjudication decision is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside adjudication decision (OS 216) dismissed with costs; application to enforce adjudication decision (OS 202) granted; Order in terms of prayers 1,2,3(i)-(xiii) and 4 of enclosure 1 of OS 202 granted.

Orders

  • Dismiss OS 216 with costs
  • Grant enforcement of Adjudication Decision dated 23.9.2022 as corrected by Correction dated 11.10.2022 under s28 CIPAA