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

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

The court held that the exchange of purchase orders, invoices, correspondence, statements of account and partial payments constituted a 'construction contract made in writing' within the meaning of s2 CIPAA; the Payment Claim met statutory requirements on substance; the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and had afforded reasonable procedural opportunities under s24 and s25 CIPAA; consequently the adjudication decision was not improperly procured and must be enforced under s28 CIPAA.

Citation
WA-24C-146-07/2022 (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-146-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Challenges Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa): Setting Aside Adjudication Decision and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision / Judgment on Concurrent Setting Aside and Enforcement Applications
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Jurisdiction (s2, S5), Meaning of Construction Contract Made in Writing, Payment Claim Requirements (s5(2), S9), Natural Justice (s15(b), S24(c)), Adjudicator Powers and Procedure (s25, S27), Enforcement of Adjudication Decision (s28)
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication/arbitration Civil Procedure CIPAA Jurisdiction (s2, S5) Meaning of Construction Contract Made in Writing Payment Claim Requirements (s5(2), S9) Natural Justice (s15(b), S24(c)) Adjudicator Powers and Procedure (s25, S27) +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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

Challenges Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa): Setting Aside Adjudication Decision and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision / Judgment on Concurrent Setting Aside and Enforcement Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a construction contract 'made in writing' existed between the parties within s2 CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether Payment Claim complied with statutory requirements (due date, cause of action) under s5(2) and s9 CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the exchange of purchase orders, invoices, correspondence, statements of account and partial payments constituted a 'construction contract made in writing' within the meaning of s2 CIPAA; the Payment Claim met statutory requirements on substance; the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and had afforded reasonable procedural opportunities under s24 and s25 CIPAA; consequently the adjudication decision was not improperly procured and must be enforced under s28 CIPAA.

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
  • Enforcement Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-129-06/2022) allowed with costs of RM4,000.00