MRCB BUILDERS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 300947-T) WAZAM VENTURES SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 860793-W)

MRCB BUILDERS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 300947-T) WAZAM VENTURES SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 860793-W)

CIPAA does not confer a general right to file a rejoinder after an adjudication reply; the adjudicator lawfully refused leave to file a rejoinder within his s 25 discretion and complied with s 12(4) by giving reasons; no breach of the second rule of natural justice was established or shown to be material; the High Court will not review merits or reweigh evidence absent a decisive breach; therefore MRCB's originating summons and application for stay are dismissed and Wazam is granted leave to enforce the adjudication decision with costs awarded to Wazam.

Citation
BA-24C-69-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (os BA 24 C 69 07/2019); Defendant (os BA 24 C 84 08/2019): MRCB Builders Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (os BA 24 C 69 07/2019); Applicant (os BA 24 C 84 08/2019): Wazam Ventures Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 November 2019
Case Number
BA-24C-69-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA (construction Adjudication Enforcement and Challenge) / Judgment (final Disposal of Originating Summonses and Applications)
Outcome
MRCB's originating summons and enclosure 12 dismissed; Wazam's originating summons allowed; leave granted to enforce adjudication decision; costs awarded to Wazam.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Adjudication Procedure, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Rejoinder/further Submissions, Stay of Enforcement, Enforcement of Adjudication as Judgment, Adjudicator Powers Under S25 CIPAA, Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Arbitration Administrative Law Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA Adjudication Procedure Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Natural Justice +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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRCB Builders Sdn. Bhd.

Applicant (os BA 24 C 69 07/2019); Defendant (os BA 24 C 84 08/2019)

Wazam Ventures Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant (os BA 24 C 69 07/2019); Applicant (os BA 24 C 84 08/2019)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA (construction Adjudication Enforcement and Challenge) / Judgment (final Disposal of Originating Summonses and Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CIPAA permits a respondent to file a rejoinder after an adjudication reply
  2. 2 Whether dismissing the request for a rejoinder breached natural justice (second rule)
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator complied with s 12(4) CIPAA (giving reasons)

Ratio Decidendi

CIPAA does not confer a general right to file a rejoinder after an adjudication reply; the adjudicator lawfully refused leave to file a rejoinder within his s 25 discretion and complied with s 12(4) by giving reasons; no breach of the second rule of natural justice was established or shown to be material; the High Court will not review merits or reweigh evidence absent a decisive breach; therefore MRCB's originating summons and application for stay are dismissed and Wazam is granted leave to enforce the adjudication decision with costs awarded to Wazam.

Court Disposition

MRCB's originating summons and enclosure 12 dismissed; Wazam's originating summons allowed; leave granted to enforce adjudication decision; costs awarded to Wazam.

Orders

  • Dismiss MRCB Builders Sdn. Bhd.'s originating summons BA-24C-69-07/2019
  • Dismiss application enclosed as Enc. 12 for stay of enforcement