QUANTUM HYRDROMECH SDN BHD NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD

QUANTUM HYRDROMECH SDN BHD NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD

The court dismissed the setting aside application because the adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the payment claim and CIPAA, there was no material denial of natural justice (the matters complained of were factual disagreements or non-material procedural matters), and therefore the adjudication decision stood; accordingly the enforcement application was allowed because the adjudicated sum remained unpaid and there was no bar to enforcement under CIPAA and applicable case law.

Citation
WA-24C-25-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 25 02/2024; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 29 03/2024: Quantum Hyrdromech Sdn Bhd; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 25 02/2024; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 29 03/2024: Nine Hundred Builders Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 August 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-25-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA 2012 (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Judgment on Applications (setting Aside Dismissed; Enforcement Allowed)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Jurisdictional Challenge, Variation Claims, Interest on Late Payment
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Contract Law CIPAA 2012 Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Natural Justice Jurisdictional Challenge +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quantum Hyrdromech Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 25 02/2024; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 29 03/2024

Nine Hundred Builders Sdn Bhd

Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 25 02/2024; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 29 03/2024

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA 2012 (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Judgment on Applications (setting Aside Dismissed; Enforcement Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding on variation claims not forming part of the payment claim
  2. 2 Whether there was a denial of natural justice by considering incorrect evidence or failing to consider material evidence
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication decision should be enforced as a judgment under s 28 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the setting aside application because the adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the payment claim and CIPAA, there was no material denial of natural justice (the matters complained of were factual disagreements or non-material procedural matters), and therefore the adjudication decision stood; accordingly the enforcement application was allowed because the adjudicated sum remained unpaid and there was no bar to enforcement under CIPAA and applicable case law.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs fixed at RM8,000.00 (subject to allocator)
  • Enforcement Application allowed with costs fixed at RM3,500.00 (subject to allocator)