Eversendai Constructions (M) Sdn. Bhd. Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn. Bhd.

Eversendai Constructions (M) Sdn. Bhd. Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn. Bhd.

The Court held the Adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under s25 CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing because written submissions and further queries were permitted, correctly found res judicata did not apply to the CIPAA 2 claims (retention sums were not previously adjudicated or paid), there was no evidence of fraud improperly procuring the AD, and SUJV failed to show special circumstances or convincing evidence of ECSB’s insolvency to justify a stay; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and enforcement orders in OS150 granted.

Citation
WA-24C-150-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os132 & Os133); Defendant (os150): SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD; Defendant (os132 & Os133); Plaintiff (os150): EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 June 2025
Case Number
WA-24C-150-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Applications Under CIPAA (set Aside, Stay Pending Arbitration, Enforcement) / Judgment on Consolidated Applications (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
OS 132 and OS 133 dismissed; OS 150 granted in terms for enforcement of adjudication decision
Legal Topics
CIPAA Adjudication, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Res Judicata, Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem), Stay Pending Arbitration, Fraud as Ground to Set Aside
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA Adjudication Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Res Judicata +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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD

Plaintiff (os132 & Os133); Defendant (os150)

EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

Defendant (os132 & Os133); Plaintiff (os150)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Applications Under CIPAA (set Aside, Stay Pending Arbitration, Enforcement) / Judgment on Consolidated Applications (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether there was denial of natural justice by refusing oral hearing
  3. 3 Whether res judicata barred the claims in CIPAA 2

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under s25 CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing because written submissions and further queries were permitted, correctly found res judicata did not apply to the CIPAA 2 claims (retention sums were not previously adjudicated or paid), there was no evidence of fraud improperly procuring the AD, and SUJV failed to show special circumstances or convincing evidence of ECSB’s insolvency to justify a stay; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and enforcement orders in OS150 granted.

Court Disposition

OS 132 and OS 133 dismissed; OS 150 granted in terms for enforcement of adjudication decision

Orders

  • Dismiss OS 132 with costs
  • Dismiss OS 133 with costs