HALUAN PRISMA SDN BHD INTERIA SDN BHD

HALUAN PRISMA SDN BHD INTERIA SDN BHD

The court held HP's section 15 CIPAA application to set aside the Adjudication Decision was without merit because the Adjudicator had considered the relevant contractual clauses and parties' responses, did not breach natural justice, and acted within the procedural powers conferred by section 25 and jurisdiction under section 27; accordingly OS10 dismissed with costs and OS27 enforcing the Adjudication Decision was allowed, granting orders in terms including payment of the adjudicated sum with interest and costs.

Citation
WA-24C-10-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os10); Defendant (os27): Haluan Prisma Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os10); Plaintiff (os27): Interia Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 September 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-10-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (construction Division) Enforcement and Challenge to Adjudication Under CIPAA / Post Adjudication Enforcement and Set Aside Applications (judgment)
Outcome
Application in OS10 (HP's section 15 CIPAA challenge) dismissed with costs; enforcement application in OS27 (ISB's section 28 CIPAA) allowed; Order In Terms granted as per enclosure 1 in OS27.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Adjudicator Jurisdiction and Powers, Costs and Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Contract Law Adjudication Under CIPAA Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Natural Justice Adjudicator Jurisdiction and Powers +1 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haluan Prisma Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os10); Defendant (os27)

Interia Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os10); Plaintiff (os27)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (construction Division) Enforcement and Challenge to Adjudication Under CIPAA / Post Adjudication Enforcement and Set Aside Applications (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudication Decision dated 19.12.2023 should be set aside under section 15 CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator breached natural justice by seeking advice and not allowing a right to reply
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction under section 27(1) CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held HP's section 15 CIPAA application to set aside the Adjudication Decision was without merit because the Adjudicator had considered the relevant contractual clauses and parties' responses, did not breach natural justice, and acted within the procedural powers conferred by section 25 and jurisdiction under section 27; accordingly OS10 dismissed with costs and OS27 enforcing the Adjudication Decision was allowed, granting orders in terms including payment of the adjudicated sum with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Application in OS10 (HP's section 15 CIPAA challenge) dismissed with costs; enforcement application in OS27 (ISB's section 28 CIPAA) allowed; Order In Terms granted as per enclosure 1 in OS27.

Orders

  • Application in Originating Summons No. WA-24C-10-01/2024 dismissed with costs to Interia Sdn Bhd
  • Enforcement application Originating Summons No. WA-24C-27-02/2024 allowed; Order In Terms granted as per prayers (a), (b)(i)-(iii) and (c) of enclosure 1 in OS27