EAKONMECH SDN BHD MAPLE STEEL SDN BHD

EAKONMECH SDN BHD MAPLE STEEL SDN BHD

On the evidence the Adjudicator acted within the scope of the payment claim and the CIPAA: the L4/L5 smoke spill works were raised in the Payment Claim as variation/remeasurement works and supported by as-built drawings, the Adjudicator was entitled under s25(m) to adjust IPC No.11 including retention, and the parties were given directions and opportunities to submit so there was no denial of natural justice. Eakonmech failed to discharge the burden to set aside the adjudication decision under s15(b)/(d); the enforcement application under s28 is therefore allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-217-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 217 11/2022); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 38 03/2023): Eakonmech Sdn Bhd; Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 217 11/2022); Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 38 03/2023): Maple Steel Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 July 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-217-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Hearing and Final Judgment on Setting Aside Application and Enforcement Application; Setting Aside Dismissed and Enforcement Allowed
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Enforcement, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice, Variation Works, Retention Sums, Liquidated Damages, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Law Civil Procedure CIPAA Enforcement Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Natural Justice Variation Works +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eakonmech Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 217 11/2022); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 38 03/2023)

Maple Steel Sdn Bhd

Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 217 11/2022); Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 38 03/2023)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Hearing and Final Judgment on Setting Aside Application and Enforcement Application; Setting Aside Dismissed and Enforcement Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding Smoke Spill System works at Levels 4 and 5 alleged to be outside the contract
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction in determining adjusted subcontract value and retention sum
  3. 3 Whether there was denial of natural justice through rewriting contract terms, imposing additional conditions for LAD, or depriving right to be heard on back-charges

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Adjudicator acted within the scope of the payment claim and the CIPAA: the L4/L5 smoke spill works were raised in the Payment Claim as variation/remeasurement works and supported by as-built drawings, the Adjudicator was entitled under s25(m) to adjust IPC No.11 including retention, and the parties were given directions and opportunities to submit so there was no denial of natural justice. Eakonmech failed to discharge the burden to set aside the adjudication decision under s15(b)/(d); the enforcement application under s28 is therefore allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs of RM7000.00 (subject to allocator)
  • Enforcement Application allowed with costs of RM3000.00 (subject to allocator)