ENGENIOUS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD

ENGENIOUS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD

The stay application was dismissed and the enforcement application allowed because the court found the adjudicator had considered the relevant evidence and asked the right questions, there were no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay under section 16 CIPAA, and the respondent (ESSB) is a going concern so the AD Sum is payable; accordingly OS184 dismissed with costs and OS205 allowed with costs.

Citation
WA-24C-205-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os184); Defendant (os205): Wah Loon (M) Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os184); Plaintiff (os205): Engenious Solutions Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 March 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-205-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (stay and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Interlocutory Applications: Stay Application (os184) and Enforcement Application (os205) Heard Together
Outcome
OS 184 dismissed; OS 205 allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012, Stay of Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Set Off, Back Charges, Liquidated and Ascertained Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA 2012 Stay of Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Set Off +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wah Loon (M) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os184); Defendant (os205)

Engenious Solutions Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os184); Plaintiff (os205)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (stay and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Interlocutory Applications: Stay Application (os184) and Enforcement Application (os205) Heard Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudication Decision contains clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay under section 16 CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the applicant can demonstrate that the adjudicator failed to consider material evidence (Progress Report No.22 and Certificate of Taking Over)
  3. 3 Whether set-off, back-charges and LAD are provable to defeat the AD

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was dismissed and the enforcement application allowed because the court found the adjudicator had considered the relevant evidence and asked the right questions, there were no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay under section 16 CIPAA, and the respondent (ESSB) is a going concern so the AD Sum is payable; accordingly OS184 dismissed with costs and OS205 allowed with costs.

Court Disposition

OS 184 dismissed; OS 205 allowed

Orders

  • OS 184 dismissed with costs
  • Prayers (a) and (b) in enclosure 1 of OS 205 allowed with costs