CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD JALEX SDN BHD

CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD JALEX SDN BHD

The payment claim met the mandatory requirements of s.5(2) CIPAA, the abbreviation '(M)' did not misidentify the respondent, and service of the adjudication documents complied with s.38 CIPAA; accordingly the adjudication decision was not improperly procured or beyond jurisdiction and must be enforced as a High Court judgment under s.28 CIPAA.

Citation
WA-24C-105-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in OS1 and Defendant in OS2: Jalex Sdn Bhd; Defendant in OS1 and Plaintiff in OS2: China Construction Yangtze River (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 September 2022
Case Number
WA-24C-105-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Enforcement and Setting Aside of CIPAA Adjudication Decision / Hearing on Originating Summons; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Application to enforce adjudication decision (OS1) allowed; application to set aside adjudication decision (OS2) dismissed.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Compliance of Payment Claim, Service of Adjudication Documents, Company Name/identity in Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Under Statute Civil Procedure CIPAA Compliance of Payment Claim Service of Adjudication Documents Company Name/identity in Proceedings Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Enforcement of Adjudication Decision

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jalex Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in OS1 and Defendant in OS2

China Construction Yangtze River (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Defendant in OS1 and Plaintiff in OS2

Procedural Posture

Enforcement and Setting Aside of CIPAA Adjudication Decision / Hearing on Originating Summons; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the payment claim complied with s.5(2) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the named party was the correct legal entity
  3. 3 Whether service of adjudication cause papers complied with s.38 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The payment claim met the mandatory requirements of s.5(2) CIPAA, the abbreviation '(M)' did not misidentify the respondent, and service of the adjudication documents complied with s.38 CIPAA; accordingly the adjudication decision was not improperly procured or beyond jurisdiction and must be enforced as a High Court judgment under s.28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

Application to enforce adjudication decision (OS1) allowed; application to set aside adjudication decision (OS2) dismissed.

Orders

  • OS1 allowed and adjudication decision enforced pursuant to s.28 CIPAA as judgment of the High Court
  • OS2 dismissed