1. ) ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD 1. ) ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD 2. ) ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

1. ) ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD 1. ) ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD 2. ) ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

The court found the Payment Claim met s5(2)(a) CIPAA by reference to contractual clauses and statutory defaults and that the adjudicator considered the right issues and afforded adequate procedural fairness; there was no jurisdictional excess or denial of natural justice in the adjudicator's factual findings on extension of time, liquidated damages and defects; ASM failed to demonstrate special circumstances to justify a stay; accordingly the adjudication decision was valid and enforceable and enforcement was ordered while the arbitration proceeds.

Citation
WA-24C-113-07/2019, WA-24C-118-07/2019 & WA-24C-173-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (originating Summons WA 24 C 113 07/2019); Defendant (wa 24 C 118 07/2019 & WA 24 C 173 09/2019): Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd; Defendant (originating Summons WA 24 C 113 07/2019); Plaintiff (wa 24 C 118 07/2019 & WA 24 C 173 09/2019): ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Case Number
WA-24C-113-07/2019, WA-24C-118-07/2019 & WA-24C-173-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Applications Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (enforcement, Stay and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision) / High Court Decision on Originating Summonses (enforcement Granted; Stay and Setting Aside Dismissed)
Outcome
ASM's Setting Aside Application and Stay Application dismissed; Econpile's Enforcement Application allowed.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Adjudication, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (s15 Cipaa), Stay Pending Arbitration (s16 Cipaa), Enforcement of Adjudication Decision (s28 Cipaa), Payment Claim Requirements (s5 Cipaa), Natural Justice, Liquidated Damages, Contract Termination
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Company Law Administrative Law CIPAA Adjudication Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (s15 Cipaa) Stay Pending Arbitration (s16 Cipaa) +5 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (originating Summons WA 24 C 113 07/2019); Defendant (wa 24 C 118 07/2019 & WA 24 C 173 09/2019)

ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd

Defendant (originating Summons WA 24 C 113 07/2019); Plaintiff (wa 24 C 118 07/2019 & WA 24 C 173 09/2019)

Procedural Posture

Applications Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (enforcement, Stay and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision) / High Court Decision on Originating Summonses (enforcement Granted; Stay and Setting Aside Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Payment Claim complied with s5(2)(a) CIPAA (stating amount and due date)
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in breach of natural justice (s15(b) CIPAA)
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction (s15(d) CIPAA)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Payment Claim met s5(2)(a) CIPAA by reference to contractual clauses and statutory defaults and that the adjudicator considered the right issues and afforded adequate procedural fairness; there was no jurisdictional excess or denial of natural justice in the adjudicator's factual findings on extension of time, liquidated damages and defects; ASM failed to demonstrate special circumstances to justify a stay; accordingly the adjudication decision was valid and enforceable and enforcement was ordered while the arbitration proceeds.

Court Disposition

ASM's Setting Aside Application and Stay Application dismissed; Econpile's Enforcement Application allowed.

Orders

  • Adjudication Decision enforced as judgment; Respondent to pay Claimant the adjudicated sum of RM59,767,269.32
  • Respondent to pay Claimant legal costs of RM150,000.00 and adjudication costs of RM203,924.40 as awarded in the Adjudication Decision