GEOSTRENGTH ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. VISTAMORE SDN. BHD.

GEOSTRENGTH ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. VISTAMORE SDN. BHD.

The court held that Geostrength failed to establish either denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction under s.15 CIPAA: the adjudicator decided the matters referred (non-payment of Certificates 28–32, Progress Claim 32 and retention) and her reliance on parties' conduct and practice was part of permissible evaluative reasoning within jurisdiction; any error would be on the merits and not a ground to set aside. Consequently the adjudication decision remained valid and, as the award remained unpaid, enforcement under s.28 CIPAA was granted.

Citation
BA-24C-44-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintif: Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd; Defendan: Vistamore Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 March 2026
Case Number
BA-24C-44-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (s.15 & S.28 Cipaa) / Judgment (high Court, Shah Alam)
Outcome
OS 44 dismissed; OS 46 allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA, Set Aside Adjudication, Enforcement of Adjudication, Natural Justice, Jurisdictional Limits of Adjudicator
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication/alternative Dispute Resolution Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA Set Aside Adjudication Enforcement of Adjudication 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd

Plaintif

Vistamore Sdn Bhd

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (s.15 & S.28 Cipaa) / Judgment (high Court, Shah Alam)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction (s.15(d) CIPAA)
  2. 2 Whether there was a denial of natural justice (s.15(b) CIPAA)
  3. 3 Whether the dispute fell within CIPAA jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Geostrength failed to establish either denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction under s.15 CIPAA: the adjudicator decided the matters referred (non-payment of Certificates 28–32, Progress Claim 32 and retention) and her reliance on parties' conduct and practice was part of permissible evaluative reasoning within jurisdiction; any error would be on the merits and not a ground to set aside. Consequently the adjudication decision remained valid and, as the award remained unpaid, enforcement under s.28 CIPAA was granted.

Court Disposition

OS 44 dismissed; OS 46 allowed

Orders

  • OS 44 dismissed with costs of RM8,000.00 to be paid by Geostrength to Vistamore (subject to allocator)
  • OS 46 allowed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by Geostrength to Vistamore (subject to allocator)