ATSA ARCHITECTS SDN BHD TEGUH MAJURIA SDN BHD

ATSA ARCHITECTS SDN BHD TEGUH MAJURIA SDN BHD

TM failed to prove denial of natural justice or real danger of bias or that the Adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction such that the Adjudication Decision must be set aside; charging fees below architects' scale does not automatically void the contract; factual/mixed questions about an unregistered individual acting as architect remain unresolved and are appropriately addressed in Suit 479; in the interest of justice the court stayed enforcement of the AD pending Suit 479, therefore Enforcement and Setting Aside applications dismissed, Stay application allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-85-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 85 07/2021; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 99 07/2021: ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 85 07/2021; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 99 07/2021: Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 October 2021
Case Number
WA-24C-85-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under CIPAA for Enforcement, Setting Aside and Stay of Adjudication Decision / High Court (construction Court 2) Judgment on Interrelated Applications
Outcome
Setting Aside Application and Enforcement Application dismissed; Stay Application allowed pending disposal of High Court Suit No. WA-22NCvC-479-07/2021
Legal Topics
CIPAA Enforcement (s 28), Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (s 15), Stay of Adjudication Decision (s 16), Illegality of Contract Under Professional Rules, Bias and Natural Justice in Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Law Contract Law Administrative Law Professional Regulation CIPAA Enforcement (s 28) Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (s 15) Stay of Adjudication Decision (s 16) +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 85 07/2021; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 99 07/2021

Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd

Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 85 07/2021; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 99 07/2021

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under CIPAA for Enforcement, Setting Aside and Stay of Adjudication Decision / High Court (construction Court 2) Judgment on Interrelated Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudication Decision dated 17.6.2021 was enforceable under s 28 CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudication Decision should be set aside under s 15 CIPAA for denial of natural justice, lack of impartiality or excess of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudication Decision should be stayed under s 16 CIPAA pending resolution of related court proceedings (Suit 479)

Ratio Decidendi

TM failed to prove denial of natural justice or real danger of bias or that the Adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction such that the Adjudication Decision must be set aside; charging fees below architects' scale does not automatically void the contract; factual/mixed questions about an unregistered individual acting as architect remain unresolved and are appropriately addressed in Suit 479; in the interest of justice the court stayed enforcement of the AD pending Suit 479, therefore Enforcement and Setting Aside applications dismissed, Stay application allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application and Enforcement Application dismissed; Stay Application allowed pending disposal of High Court Suit No. WA-22NCvC-479-07/2021

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs of MYR 10,000.00 to be paid by Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd to ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd (subject to standard allocatur fees)
  • Enforcement Application dismissed with costs of MYR 3,000.00 to be paid by ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd to Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd (subject to standard allocatur fees)