MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD SMM RESOURCES SDN BHD

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD SMM RESOURCES SDN BHD

The court held the adjudicator made the decision within the s.12(2) timeframe (decision dated 18 March 2020), withholding under s.19(5) pending payment of fees was lawful, AIAC ARP instruments are administrative/advisory and non‑compliance is not fatal, the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction in awarding the January–March 2019 amounts, and there was no denial of natural justice; accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and the enforcement application allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-98-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in Os1; Defendant in OS2: MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd; Defendant in Os1; Plaintiff in OS2: SMM Resources Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Case Number
WA-24C-98-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cipaa Adjudication) / Applications to Set Aside and to Enforce Adjudication Decision; High Court Judgment Delivered 20 August 2021
Outcome
OS1 dismissed; OS2 allowed; adjudication decision enforced as judgment of the High Court
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012 Compliance, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Adjudicator Jurisdiction, Adjudicator Fees and Withholding
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Law Contract Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure CIPAA 2012 Compliance Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision +3 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in Os1; Defendant in OS2

SMM Resources Sdn Bhd

Defendant in Os1; Plaintiff in OS2

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cipaa Adjudication) / Applications to Set Aside and to Enforce Adjudication Decision; High Court Judgment Delivered 20 August 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication decision was delivered outside time under s.12(2)(a) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator lawfully withheld decision pending payment under s.19(5) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether AIAC Adjudication Rules & Procedure (ARP) are subsidiary legislation and non‑compliance invalidates decision

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the adjudicator made the decision within the s.12(2) timeframe (decision dated 18 March 2020), withholding under s.19(5) pending payment of fees was lawful, AIAC ARP instruments are administrative/advisory and non‑compliance is not fatal, the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction in awarding the January–March 2019 amounts, and there was no denial of natural justice; accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and the enforcement application allowed.

Court Disposition

OS1 dismissed; OS2 allowed; adjudication decision enforced as judgment of the High Court

Orders

  • OS1 dismissed with costs RM6,000.00 subject to the standard allocator
  • OS2 allowed and adjudication decision enforced as a judgment of the High Court