NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD QUANTUM HYDROMECH SDN BHD

NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD QUANTUM HYDROMECH SDN BHD

The court dismissed the setting aside application because Quantum failed to prove a material denial of natural justice or that the adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction; the issues raised were disagreements on findings of fact and merits which are not grounds under s15 CIPAA; the adjudicator had jurisdiction under ss5,6,27 and validly exercised powers under s25; consequently the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed and the adjudication decision was enforced as a High Court judgment.

Citation
WA-24C-29-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (plaintiff in O.s. No.25; Defendant in O.s. No.29): Quantum Hyrdromech Sdn Bhd; Respondent (defendant in O.s. No.25; Plaintiff in O.s. No.29): Nine Hundred Builders Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 August 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-29-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Applications to Set Aside an Adjudication Decision and to Enforce the Adjudication Decision; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Adjudication, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement as Judgment, Natural Justice, Jurisdictional Challenge, Variation Orders, Payment Claim and Response, Interest and Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA Adjudication Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement as Judgment Natural Justice +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quantum Hyrdromech Sdn Bhd

Applicant (plaintiff in O.s. No.25; Defendant in O.s. No.29)

Nine Hundred Builders Sdn Bhd

Respondent (defendant in O.s. No.25; Plaintiff in O.s. No.29)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Applications to Set Aside an Adjudication Decision and to Enforce the Adjudication Decision; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudication decision should be set aside for denial of natural justice under s 15(b) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding variation claims beyond the Payment Claim under s 15(d) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator relied on incorrect or unraised evidence (eg Google Earth) amounting to breach of procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the setting aside application because Quantum failed to prove a material denial of natural justice or that the adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction; the issues raised were disagreements on findings of fact and merits which are not grounds under s15 CIPAA; the adjudicator had jurisdiction under ss5,6,27 and validly exercised powers under s25; consequently the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed and the adjudication decision was enforced as a High Court judgment.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs of RM8,000.00 subject to allocator
  • Enforcement Application allowed and adjudication decision enforced as a judgment with costs of RM3,500.00 subject to allocator