RAPS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

RAPS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

The High Court held the adjudicator did not breach the rules of natural justice in any material way and even if a procedural flaw existed it would not have altered the outcome; the arbitration relied upon by Itramas was not lawfully instituted due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-arbitration steps so s16(1)(b) did not entitle a stay, and the court therefore allowed enforcement under s28 CIPAA while granting only an ad interim stay of execution on appeal but prohibiting use of frozen funds.

Citation
BA-24C-18-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: RAPS SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 870736-H); Defendant/respondent: ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 497077-A)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 January 2022
Case Number
BA-24C-18-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA (enforcement, Setting Aside, Stay) / High Court Judgment on Originating Summonses; Appeal Pending to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Setting Aside OS dismissed; Stay OS dismissed; Enforcement OS allowed; Ad interim stay of execution granted pending Court of Appeal application but frozen funds not to be used; costs to RAPS
Legal Topics
CIPAA Enforcement, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Stay of Enforcement, Natural Justice (procedural Fairness), Set Off and Retention, Interest on Late Payment
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA Enforcement Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Stay of Enforcement +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAPS SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 870736-H)

Plaintiff/applicant

ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 497077-A)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA (enforcement, Setting Aside, Stay) / High Court Judgment on Originating Summonses; Appeal Pending to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator breached natural justice by failing to consider respondent's set-off for rectification costs
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator improperly determined late payment interest without clear computation from parties
  3. 3 Whether s 16(1)(b) CIPAA permits a stay where the contractual pre-arbitration dispute resolution steps were not complied with

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the adjudicator did not breach the rules of natural justice in any material way and even if a procedural flaw existed it would not have altered the outcome; the arbitration relied upon by Itramas was not lawfully instituted due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-arbitration steps so s16(1)(b) did not entitle a stay, and the court therefore allowed enforcement under s28 CIPAA while granting only an ad interim stay of execution on appeal but prohibiting use of frozen funds.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside OS dismissed; Stay OS dismissed; Enforcement OS allowed; Ad interim stay of execution granted pending Court of Appeal application but frozen funds not to be used; costs to RAPS

Orders

  • Setting Aside Originating Summons dismissed
  • Stay Originating Summons dismissed