KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD

KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD

The court dismissed the setting aside and stay applications and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision in part: the adjudicator had jurisdiction (CIPAA covers reclamation and Sinohydro was an unpaid party), the appointment challenge was not pursued/was previously addressed, KAJ was estopped from attacking the timing because it agreed to an extension for delivery of the AD, the only substantive error was a double award totaling RM3,624,943.80 which did not amount to denial of natural justice and could be excised under s28(2), and therefore enforcement was granted for the remaining adjudicated sum; costs awarded in aggregate RM20,000 (subject to allocatur).

Citation
WA-24C-223-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 223 11/2020); Defendant/respondent (o.s. No. WA 24 C 250 12/2020): KAJ Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 223 11/2020); Plaintiff/applicant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 250 12/2020): Sinohydro Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Case Number
WA-24C-223-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Applications) / Full Hearing and Judgment on Applications (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed in part.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Enforcement, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Time Limits for Adjudication Decision, Stay of Enforcement, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication and Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure Contract Law Judicial Review/administrative Law CIPAA Enforcement Setting Aside Adjudication Decision 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAJ Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 223 11/2020); Defendant/respondent (o.s. No. WA 24 C 250 12/2020)

Sinohydro Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd

Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 223 11/2020); Plaintiff/applicant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 250 12/2020)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Applications) / Full Hearing and Judgment on Applications (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of adjudicator appointment by AIAC acting director
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether works (reclamation) fall within 'construction work' under s4 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the setting aside and stay applications and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision in part: the adjudicator had jurisdiction (CIPAA covers reclamation and Sinohydro was an unpaid party), the appointment challenge was not pursued/was previously addressed, KAJ was estopped from attacking the timing because it agreed to an extension for delivery of the AD, the only substantive error was a double award totaling RM3,624,943.80 which did not amount to denial of natural justice and could be excised under s28(2), and therefore enforcement was granted for the remaining adjudicated sum; costs awarded in aggregate RM20,000 (subject to allocatur).

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed in part.

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed.
  • Stay Application dismissed.