OKG (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. GOODWINDS INTERIOR DESIGN SDN. BHD.

OKG (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. GOODWINDS INTERIOR DESIGN SDN. BHD.

The court held the adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction nor act without independence or impartiality because he addressed the relevant legal questions, correctly classified the scope as construction works rather than regulated interior design consultancy, considered the evidence and submissions, and therefore the setting aside application failed; consequently the adjudication decision was enforceable and enforcement ordered.

Citation
WA-24C-26-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os26); Defendant (os44): OKG (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os26); Plaintiff (os44): Goodwinds Project Solutions Sdn Bhd (formerly Goodwinds Interior Design Sdn Bhd)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 September 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-26-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA (adjudication Enforcement and Setting Aside) / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Adjudication, Stay Execution and Enforcement Order (final)
Outcome
Setting aside application dismissed with costs; stay application dismissed as academic; enforcement order granted in terms of the adjudication decision dated 29.1.2024.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Enforcement, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Architects Act Compliance, Independence and Impartiality of Adjudicator
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Contract Law Administrative Law CIPAA Enforcement Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Architects Act Compliance +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OKG (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os26); Defendant (os44)

Goodwinds Project Solutions Sdn Bhd (formerly Goodwinds Interior Design Sdn Bhd)

Defendant (os26); Plaintiff (os44)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA (adjudication Enforcement and Setting Aside) / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Adjudication, Stay Execution and Enforcement Order (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by deciding on alleged illegality under the Architects Act
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted without independence or impartiality
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication decision should be set aside under s15/s16 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction nor act without independence or impartiality because he addressed the relevant legal questions, correctly classified the scope as construction works rather than regulated interior design consultancy, considered the evidence and submissions, and therefore the setting aside application failed; consequently the adjudication decision was enforceable and enforcement ordered.

Court Disposition

Setting aside application dismissed with costs; stay application dismissed as academic; enforcement order granted in terms of the adjudication decision dated 29.1.2024.

Orders

  • Dismiss enclosure 1 in OS 26 (setting aside application) with costs
  • Dismiss stay application in OS 26