PJ MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PEMBINAAN MITRAJAYA SDN BHD

PJ MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PEMBINAAN MITRAJAYA SDN BHD

The adjudicator did not deny natural justice because parties were given an opportunity to make written clarifications and submissions; the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide issues raised in the adjudication reply as they rebutted matters in the payment response and fell within the adjudication's scope; errors of law or factual misdirections in an adjudication decision do not equate to jurisdictional error under CIPAA because adjudication decisions are provisional and corrigible; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and the application to enforce granted.

Citation
wa-24c-178-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2): PJ Midtown Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os1); Plaintiff (os2): Pembinaan Mitrajaya Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Case Number
wa-24c-178-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Hearing and Judgment on Cross Applications to Set Aside and to Enforce an Adjudication Decision
Outcome
OS 1 (application to set aside adjudication decision) disallowed; OS 2 (application to enforce adjudication decision) allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Adjudication, Natural Justice, Jurisdictional Challenge, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Extension of Time (eot), Liquidated and Ascertained Damages (lad), Set Off
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Arbitration Law CIPAA Adjudication Natural Justice Jurisdictional Challenge +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJ Midtown Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os1); Defendant (os2)

Pembinaan Mitrajaya Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os1); Plaintiff (os2)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Hearing and Judgment on Cross Applications to Set Aside and to Enforce an Adjudication Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator denied natural justice by refusing oral hearing
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by deciding matters not in payment claim/adjudication claim
  3. 3 Whether errors of law by adjudicator constitute jurisdictional error under CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator did not deny natural justice because parties were given an opportunity to make written clarifications and submissions; the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide issues raised in the adjudication reply as they rebutted matters in the payment response and fell within the adjudication's scope; errors of law or factual misdirections in an adjudication decision do not equate to jurisdictional error under CIPAA because adjudication decisions are provisional and corrigible; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and the application to enforce granted.

Court Disposition

OS 1 (application to set aside adjudication decision) disallowed; OS 2 (application to enforce adjudication decision) allowed

Orders

  • OS 1 dismissed with costs RM10000.00 subject to 4% allocator
  • OS 2 allowed with enforcement of the adjudication decision and costs RM10000.00 subject to 4% allocator