Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd

Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd

The Court held the adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction: the rectified amounts were refinements of previously submitted interim claims and not new or premature claims, the Payment Claim met s.5 CIPAA requirements so Mersing was an 'unpaid party', and the adjudicator had statutory power under s.25 to adjudicate those items; appeal dismissed.

Citation
W-02(C)(A)-98-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff in High Court): Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd; Respondent (defendant in High Court): Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 August 2022
Case Number
W-02(C)(A)-98-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdiction of Adjudication Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Adjudication Decision and enforcement order upheld
Legal Topics
CIPAA Jurisdiction, Payment Claim Validity, Rectified/interim Claims, Adjudicator Powers, Set Aside Under S.15 CIPAA
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA Jurisdiction Payment Claim Validity Rectified/interim Claims Adjudicator Powers +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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd

Appellant (plaintiff in High Court)

Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd

Respondent (defendant in High Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdiction of Adjudication Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating rectified claim amounts not re‑submitted for contractual certification
  2. 2 Whether rectified amounts constituted new or premature claims outside CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether claimant was an "unpaid party" and payment claim complied with s.5 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction: the rectified amounts were refinements of previously submitted interim claims and not new or premature claims, the Payment Claim met s.5 CIPAA requirements so Mersing was an 'unpaid party', and the adjudicator had statutory power under s.25 to adjudicate those items; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Adjudication Decision and enforcement order upheld

Orders

  • Appeal W-02(C)(A)-98-01/2021 dismissed
  • Appeal W-02(C)(A)-100-01/2021 dismissed