PINTARAS GEOTECHNICS SDN BHD KKH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

PINTARAS GEOTECHNICS SDN BHD KKH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The High Court held the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction: the dispute arose prior to the payment claim, the adjudicator properly exercised powers under sections 25(m) and (n) CIPAA, loss and expense claims fall within the definition of 'payment' under section 4 CIPAA and are capable of adjudication, and any alleged errors are not grounds under section 15 to set aside the decision; therefore OS57 was dismissed and the Adjudication Decision was enforceable under section 28 CIPAA (OS34 granted in terms stated).

Citation
WA-24C-34-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (in OS 34); Defendant (in OS 57): Pintaras Geotechnics Sdn Bhd; Defendant (in OS 34); Plaintiff (in OS 57): KKH Development Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 September 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-34-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Enforcement and Challenge of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 / High Court Judgment on Originating Summonses (os 34 and OS 57)
Outcome
Originating Summons No. WA-24C-57-04/2023 (KKH) dismissed with costs; Originating Summons No. WA-24C-34-03/2023 (Pintaras) granted to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 17.2.2023 in terms of prayers specified.
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Loss and Expense Claims, Final Claim Vs Final Account, Concurrent Arbitration
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Arbitration and Adjudication Contract Law CIPAA 2012 Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Loss and Expense Claims +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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pintaras Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (in OS 34); Defendant (in OS 57)

KKH Development Sdn Bhd

Defendant (in OS 34); Plaintiff (in OS 57)

Procedural Posture

Enforcement and Challenge of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 / High Court Judgment on Originating Summonses (os 34 and OS 57)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction or acted in excess of jurisdiction (final claim vs final account)
  2. 2 Whether the subject matter ought to be referred to arbitration instead of adjudication
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to adjudicate loss and expense claims

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction: the dispute arose prior to the payment claim, the adjudicator properly exercised powers under sections 25(m) and (n) CIPAA, loss and expense claims fall within the definition of 'payment' under section 4 CIPAA and are capable of adjudication, and any alleged errors are not grounds under section 15 to set aside the decision; therefore OS57 was dismissed and the Adjudication Decision was enforceable under section 28 CIPAA (OS34 granted in terms stated).

Court Disposition

Originating Summons No. WA-24C-57-04/2023 (KKH) dismissed with costs; Originating Summons No. WA-24C-34-03/2023 (Pintaras) granted to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 17.2.2023 in terms of prayers specified.

Orders

  • Dismiss Originating Summons No. WA-24C-57-04/2023 with costs.
  • Grant enforcement of Adjudication Decision dated 17.2.2023 and order in terms of prayers 1, 2(a) to 2(f) and 3 in enclosure 1 of Originating Summons No. WA-24C-34-03/2023.