TUV SUD (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD INTISARI MULIA ENGINEERING SDN BHD

TUV SUD (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD INTISARI MULIA ENGINEERING SDN BHD

The court held the adjudicator had core jurisdiction because the parties' contractual relationship was evidenced in writing by purchase orders, invoices, correspondence and partial payments (s 2 CIPAA interpreted liberally); the Payment Claim satisfied statutory requirements; the adjudicator afforded adequate procedural fairness and did not act in excess of jurisdiction; accordingly the Setting Aside Application was dismissed and the Adjudication Decision enforced.

Citation
WA-24C-129-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 129 06/2022; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 146 07/2022: TUV SUD (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 146 07/2022; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 129 06/2022: Intisari Mulia Engineering Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-129-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (enforcement and Setting Aside Under Cipaa) / Decision on Concurrent Enforcement and Setting Aside Applications at High Court (construction Court 2)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Jurisdiction, Construction Contract in Writing, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudicator's Decision, Natural Justice, Payment Claim Requirements
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arbitration and Adjudication Law CIPAA Jurisdiction Construction Contract in Writing Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudicator's Decision +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TUV SUD (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 129 06/2022; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 146 07/2022

Intisari Mulia Engineering Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 146 07/2022; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 129 06/2022

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (enforcement and Setting Aside Under Cipaa) / Decision on Concurrent Enforcement and Setting Aside Applications at High Court (construction Court 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a "construction contract made in writing" existed between the parties for CIPAA jurisdiction (s 2 and s 5)
  2. 2 Whether the Payment Claim complied with s 5(2) CIPAA (amount, due date, cause of action)
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction (s 15(d))

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the adjudicator had core jurisdiction because the parties' contractual relationship was evidenced in writing by purchase orders, invoices, correspondence and partial payments (s 2 CIPAA interpreted liberally); the Payment Claim satisfied statutory requirements; the adjudicator afforded adequate procedural fairness and did not act in excess of jurisdiction; accordingly the Setting Aside Application was dismissed and the Adjudication Decision enforced.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-146-07/2022) dismissed with costs of RM6,000.00 (subject to allocator)
  • Enforcement Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-129-06/2022) allowed; Adjudication Decision dated 27.5.2022 enforced; costs RM4,000.00 (subject to allocator)