Vistamore Sdn Bhd Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd

Vistamore Sdn Bhd Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd

The High Court held the adjudicator decided the precise matters referred (non‑payment of Certificates 28–32, Progress Claim 32 and retention), and that references to parties' conduct and project practice were permissible evaluative tools within the adjudicator's remit rather than new causes of action; there was no material denial of natural justice and no excess of jurisdiction, thus the application to set aside failed and the adjudication decision is enforceable under s28 CIPAA.

Citation
BA-24C-46-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (os 44) / Defendant (os 46): Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd; Applicant (os 46) / Defendant (os 44): Vistamore Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 March 2026
Case Number
BA-24C-46-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / High Court Judgment (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
OS 44 dismissed; OS 46 allowed; adjudication decision dated 26.6.2025 upheld and enforceable
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Jurisdictional Limits
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Administrative Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Under CIPAA Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Natural Justice +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd

Applicant (os 44) / Defendant (os 46)

Vistamore Sdn Bhd

Applicant (os 46) / Defendant (os 44)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / High Court Judgment (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding matters outside the Payment Claim
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator denied natural justice by deciding on the Letter of Undertaking and party conduct without giving opportunity to be heard
  3. 3 Whether the dispute fell within CIPAA and thus the adjudicator had jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the adjudicator decided the precise matters referred (non‑payment of Certificates 28–32, Progress Claim 32 and retention), and that references to parties' conduct and project practice were permissible evaluative tools within the adjudicator's remit rather than new causes of action; there was no material denial of natural justice and no excess of jurisdiction, thus the application to set aside failed and the adjudication decision is enforceable under s28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

OS 44 dismissed; OS 46 allowed; adjudication decision dated 26.6.2025 upheld and enforceable

Orders

  • OS 44 dismissed with costs of RM8,000.00 to be borne and paid by Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd to Vistamore Sdn Bhd, subject to allocator
  • OS 46 allowed; adjudication decision dated 26.6.2025 enforced; costs of RM5,000.00 to be borne and paid by Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd to Vistamore Sdn Bhd, subject to allocator