KLIA ASSOCIATES SDN BHD & SATU LAGI MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD

KLIA ASSOCIATES SDN BHD & SATU LAGI MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD

The Decision was upheld because (1) the consortium lacked separate legal personality so the constituent companies were correctly named as parties, (2) the AIAC director validly appointed the adjudicator under s.21(b) CIPAA where there was no agreement on an adjudicator, and (3) the Contract is in substance a construction contract under s.4 CIPAA; consequently the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction and the adjudication decision is enforceable.

Citation
wa-24c-258-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2): KLIA ASSOCIATES SDN BHD; Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2): KLIA CONSULTANCY SERVICES SDN BHD; Defendant (os1); Plaintiff (os2): MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 August 2020
Case Number
wa-24c-258-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Adjudication Enforcement/set Aside / Judgment Grounds of Decision Delivered
Outcome
OS 1 (set-aside application) disallowed; OS 2 (enforcement application) allowed; adjudication decision enforced as judgment.
Legal Topics
CIPAA, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Appointment of Adjudicator, Definition of Construction Contract, Party Joinder/standing
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation CIPAA Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Appointment of Adjudicator +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KLIA ASSOCIATES SDN BHD

Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2)

KLIA CONSULTANCY SERVICES SDN BHD

Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2)

MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD

Defendant (os1); Plaintiff (os2)

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Adjudication Enforcement/set Aside / Judgment Grounds of Decision Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the correct parties were named in the adjudication (consortium vs constituent companies)
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator was validly appointed under ss.21-22 CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the contract falls within the definition of a construction contract under s.4 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The Decision was upheld because (1) the consortium lacked separate legal personality so the constituent companies were correctly named as parties, (2) the AIAC director validly appointed the adjudicator under s.21(b) CIPAA where there was no agreement on an adjudicator, and (3) the Contract is in substance a construction contract under s.4 CIPAA; consequently the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction and the adjudication decision is enforceable.

Court Disposition

OS 1 (set-aside application) disallowed; OS 2 (enforcement application) allowed; adjudication decision enforced as judgment.

Orders

  • OS 1 disallowed with costs of RM7,500.00 subject to 4% allocator
  • OS 2 allowed and the Adjudication Decision dated 22 November 2019 is enforced as a judgment of the High Court