1. ) SAPURA HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) EV-DYNAMIC SDN BHD MMC GAMUDA KVMRT (PDP SSP) SDN BHD

1. ) SAPURA HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) EV-DYNAMIC SDN BHD MMC GAMUDA KVMRT (PDP SSP) SDN BHD

The High Court held the Adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor exceed jurisdiction: NOC1 and the underestimation/variation issues were pleaded or reasonably connected to pleaded issues; the corrections made under section 12(7) were proper computational/arithmetical corrections after consideration of parties' letters; there was no functus officio; no exceptional circumstances justified a stay; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application granted (Order in Terms for prayers (a) and (b) of enclosure 1 of OS 152).

Citation
WA-24C-152-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (os 142); Defendant (os 152): MMC Gamuda KVMRT (PDP SSP) Sdn Bhd; Respondent (os 142); Plaintiff (os 152): Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd; Respondent (os 142); Plaintiff (os 152): EV-Dynamic Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 September 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-152-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Adjudication Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Applications (originating Summons) / Judgment on Applications (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement)
Outcome
Setting aside application (OS 142) dismissed with costs; Stay application dismissed; Enforcement application (OS 152) granted (Order in Terms for prayers (a) and (b) of enclosure 1 of OS 152).
Legal Topics
CIPAA Corrections Under Section 12(7), Setting Aside Adjudication (section 15), Enforcement (section 28), Stay Pending Arbitration, Natural Justice, Jurisdictional Limits of Adjudicator, Variation Claims, Final Account and Overpayment, Financial Distress as Ground for Stay
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA Corrections Under Section 12(7) Setting Aside Adjudication (section 15) Enforcement (section 28) Stay Pending Arbitration +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MMC Gamuda KVMRT (PDP SSP) Sdn Bhd

Applicant (os 142); Defendant (os 152)

Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd

Respondent (os 142); Plaintiff (os 152)

EV-Dynamic Sdn Bhd

Respondent (os 142); Plaintiff (os 152)

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Adjudication Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Applications (originating Summons) / Judgment on Applications (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator breached natural justice by deciding issues not pleaded or without hearing MMC Gamuda (NOC1/underestimation of switches)
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by treating NOC1 as a variation
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator was functus officio and impermissibly amended the Adjudication Decision under section 12(7) CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor exceed jurisdiction: NOC1 and the underestimation/variation issues were pleaded or reasonably connected to pleaded issues; the corrections made under section 12(7) were proper computational/arithmetical corrections after consideration of parties' letters; there was no functus officio; no exceptional circumstances justified a stay; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application granted (Order in Terms for prayers (a) and (b) of enclosure 1 of OS 152).

Court Disposition

Setting aside application (OS 142) dismissed with costs; Stay application dismissed; Enforcement application (OS 152) granted (Order in Terms for prayers (a) and (b) of enclosure 1 of OS 152).

Orders

  • OS 142 dismissed with costs to Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd and EV-Dynamic Sdn Bhd
  • Stay application dismissed