TRENDZONE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD YUEN KEONG CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION SDN BHD

TRENDZONE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD YUEN KEONG CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION SDN BHD

The court held the adjudicator did not deny natural justice by refusing Trendzone's request for an indefinite extension to await an unrelated arbitration; Trendzone had sufficient documents to advance a set‑off yet failed to satisfy contractual prerequisites for defective works and did not prove bias or procedural unfairness, therefore the adjudication decision was not set aside and was enforceable under s 28 CIPAA.

Citation
WA-24C-163-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 157 09/2021; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 163 09/2021: Yuen Keong Construction & Renovation Sdn Bhd; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 157 09/2021; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 163 09/2021: Trendzone Engineering & Construction (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 January 2022
Case Number
WA-24C-163-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Applications Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa): Enforcement and Setting Aside of an Adjudication Decision / High Court (originating Summons Hearings and Judgment)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Enforcement (s 28), Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (s 15), Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem, Bias), Extension of Time (s 25(p)), Set Off and Counterclaim in Adjudication, Adjudicator Discretion and Finality
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Arbitration Law Statutory Adjudication CIPAA Enforcement (s 28) Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (s 15) +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuen Keong Construction & Renovation Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 157 09/2021; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 163 09/2021

Trendzone Engineering & Construction (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 157 09/2021; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 163 09/2021

Procedural Posture

Applications Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa): Enforcement and Setting Aside of an Adjudication Decision / High Court (originating Summons Hearings and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's refusal to grant an extension of time to await an arbitration decision amounted to denial of natural justice under s 15(b) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether Trendzone was denied a fair hearing by being forced to file an incomplete adjudication response and whether the adjudicator acted on false information or was biased
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication decision should be enforced under s 28 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the adjudicator did not deny natural justice by refusing Trendzone's request for an indefinite extension to await an unrelated arbitration; Trendzone had sufficient documents to advance a set‑off yet failed to satisfy contractual prerequisites for defective works and did not prove bias or procedural unfairness, therefore the adjudication decision was not set aside and was enforceable under s 28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application in O.S. No. WA-24C-163-09/2021 dismissed
  • Enforcement Application in O.S. No. WA-24C-157-09/2021 allowed and the Adjudication Decision dated 28.7.2021 enforced as if a High Court judgment under s 28 CIPAA