PEMBINAAN MELIMA (M) SDN BHD ATM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

PEMBINAAN MELIMA (M) SDN BHD ATM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The court held the challenge to the adjudication decision was a procedural one and found no material denial of natural justice: the adjudicator considered issues raised in the adjudication submissions, afforded procedural opportunities within CIPAA time constraints, discarded ATMB's late affidavits, and provided sufficient reasons. Accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and the enforcement application was allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-26-04/2021 & WA-24C-28-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2): Pembinaan Melima (M) Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os1); Plaintiff (os2): ATM Development Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 September 2021
Case Number
WA-24C-26-04/2021 & WA-24C-28-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 / High Court Judgment (grounds of Decision); Appeal Filed to Court of Appeal by ATM Development
Outcome
Setting aside application (OS2) dismissed; enforcement application (OS1) allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012, Adjudication, Natural Justice, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction, Affidavit Admissibility
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure CIPAA 2012 Adjudication Natural Justice Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision +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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pembinaan Melima (M) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2)

ATM Development Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os1); Plaintiff (os2)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 / High Court Judgment (grounds of Decision); Appeal Filed to Court of Appeal by ATM Development

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication decision should be set aside for denial of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by not considering set-off not raised in payment response
  3. 3 Whether adjudicator's reasons were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the challenge to the adjudication decision was a procedural one and found no material denial of natural justice: the adjudicator considered issues raised in the adjudication submissions, afforded procedural opportunities within CIPAA time constraints, discarded ATMB's late affidavits, and provided sufficient reasons. Accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and the enforcement application was allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting aside application (OS2) dismissed; enforcement application (OS1) allowed

Orders

  • OS2 dismissed with costs RM4,000.00 subject to the usual allocator
  • OS1 allowed; adjudication decision enforced as judgment with costs RM4,000.00 subject to the usual allocator