Perbadanan Putrajaya DAMANSARA REALTY (JOHOR) SDN. BHD.

Perbadanan Putrajaya DAMANSARA REALTY (JOHOR) SDN. BHD.

The court held the Development Agreement falls within CIPAA as a construction agreement; the Adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction and powers under s.25(m) and (n) to decide the claim despite absence of Joint Auditors' certificate; there was no basis under s.15 to set aside the Adjudication Decision; no special circumstances justified a stay under s.16; the Adjudication Decision is enforceable under s.28.

Citation
WA-24C-25-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (os24 & Os25); Respondent (os37): Perbadanan Putrajaya; Respondent (os24 & Os25); Plaintiff (os37): Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
WA-24C-25-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision / Judgment (originating Summons Heard Together)
Outcome
Originating Summons WA-24C-24-01/2025 and WA-24C-25-01/2025 dismissed with costs; Originating Summons WA-24C-37-02/2025 allowed and Adjudication Decision dated 10.1.2025 enforced.
Legal Topics
CIPAA, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Stay of Execution, Enforcement of Adjudication Award, Termination of Contract, Valuation of Works
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Civil Procedure CIPAA Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Stay of Execution Enforcement of Adjudication Award Termination of Contract +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perbadanan Putrajaya

Applicant (os24 & Os25); Respondent (os37)

Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd

Respondent (os24 & Os25); Plaintiff (os37)

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision / Judgment (originating Summons Heard Together)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Development Agreement is a construction contract within CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by deciding without Joint Auditors' certificate
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudication Decision should be set aside under section 15 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Development Agreement falls within CIPAA as a construction agreement; the Adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction and powers under s.25(m) and (n) to decide the claim despite absence of Joint Auditors' certificate; there was no basis under s.15 to set aside the Adjudication Decision; no special circumstances justified a stay under s.16; the Adjudication Decision is enforceable under s.28.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons WA-24C-24-01/2025 and WA-24C-25-01/2025 dismissed with costs; Originating Summons WA-24C-37-02/2025 allowed and Adjudication Decision dated 10.1.2025 enforced.

Orders

  • Originating Summons No. WA-24C-24-01/2025 dismissed with costs
  • Originating Summons No. WA-24C-25-01/2025 dismissed with costs