HIFORM (M) SDN BHD PEMBINAAN BUKIT TIMAH SDN BHD

HIFORM (M) SDN BHD PEMBINAAN BUKIT TIMAH SDN BHD

The adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction because PBT's claims for rectification/additional completion costs and liquidated damages were damages arising from alleged breach of contract, not 'payment for work done or services rendered' under the express terms of the construction contract as required by ss.4 and 5 CIPAA; accordingly the adjudication decision was set aside.

Citation
wa-24c-104-06/2020 & wa-24c-114-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in OS 1; Defendant in OS 2: HIFORM (M) SDN BHD; Defendant in OS 1; Plaintiff in OS 2: PEMBINAAN BUKIT TIMAH SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 December 2020
Case Number
wa-24c-104-06/2020 & wa-24c-114-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA / Judgment (grounds of Decision)
Outcome
Adjudication decision dated 6 May 2020 set aside; enforcement application dismissed
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice, Liquidated Damages, Rectification and Completion Costs, Statutory Interpretation, Set Off
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA 2012 Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Jurisdiction of Adjudicator +5 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HIFORM (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff in OS 1; Defendant in OS 2

PEMBINAAN BUKIT TIMAH SDN BHD

Defendant in OS 1; Plaintiff in OS 2

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA / Judgment (grounds of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PBT's claims constituted a 'payment' under ss.4 and 5 CIPAA and hence were adjudicatable
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s.15(d) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator denied natural justice to Hiform

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction because PBT's claims for rectification/additional completion costs and liquidated damages were damages arising from alleged breach of contract, not 'payment for work done or services rendered' under the express terms of the construction contract as required by ss.4 and 5 CIPAA; accordingly the adjudication decision was set aside.

Court Disposition

Adjudication decision dated 6 May 2020 set aside; enforcement application dismissed

Orders

  • Adjudication decision dated 6 May 2020 set aside
  • Allow OS 1 (Hiform) with costs of RM15000.00 subject to the standard allocator