SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

The High Court held that the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing since parties had adequate written opportunities, res judicata did not bar the subsequent adjudication because the asserted claims were not previously decided or paid as at IPC No.59, no fraud was established on the balance of probabilities or shown to have improperly procured the AD, and there were no special circumstances to warrant a stay pending arbitration; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and the enforcement orders sought in OS150 were granted in terms.

Citation
WA-24C-132-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant in OS132 & Os133; Defendant in OS150: Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn Bhd; Respondent in OS132 & Os133; Applicant in OS150: Eversendai Construction (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 June 2025
Case Number
WA-24C-132-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Concerning Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions / Judgment on Consolidated Originating Summonses (decision on Os132, OS133 and Os150)
Outcome
OS132 and OS133 dismissed with costs; Order in Terms granted in OS150 (enforcement of adjudication decision)
Legal Topics
CIPAA, Res Judicata, Natural Justice, Stay Pending Arbitration, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Fraud in Procurement, Retention Sums
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA Res Judicata Natural Justice +4 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn Bhd

Applicant in OS132 & Os133; Defendant in OS150

Eversendai Construction (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent in OS132 & Os133; Applicant in OS150

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Concerning Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions / Judgment on Consolidated Originating Summonses (decision on Os132, OS133 and Os150)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication decision (AD) should be set aside for excess of jurisdiction or denial of natural justice (failure to afford oral hearing)
  2. 2 Whether AD was improperly procured through fraud
  3. 3 Whether res judicata operates to bar the claims in the subsequent adjudication

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing since parties had adequate written opportunities, res judicata did not bar the subsequent adjudication because the asserted claims were not previously decided or paid as at IPC No.59, no fraud was established on the balance of probabilities or shown to have improperly procured the AD, and there were no special circumstances to warrant a stay pending arbitration; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and the enforcement orders sought in OS150 were granted in terms.

Court Disposition

OS132 and OS133 dismissed with costs; Order in Terms granted in OS150 (enforcement of adjudication decision)

Orders

  • OS132 dismissed with costs
  • OS133 dismissed with costs