CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING SDN. BHD. ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING SDN. BHD. ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

The Court held that the Payment Claim met the statutory threshold under s 5(2) CIPAA when assessed objectively; the Adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction, the Adjudication Decision was made and delivered within the permissible timeframe (taking into account the withholding mechanism under s 19(5)), the appointment was valid despite lack of signature, there was no breach of natural justice, and accordingly the Setting Aside and Stay Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Application allowed. Costs were awarded to the successful party in the sums ordered by the Court.

Citation
WA-24C-164-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 157 08/2022; Respondent in O.s. No. WA 24 C 164 08/2022: ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 157 08/2022; Applicant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 164 08/2022: CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 April 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-164-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Applications to Set Aside/stay an Adjudication Decision and to Enforce an Adjudication Decision; Judgment on Applications
Outcome
Setting Aside and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Payment Claim Validity, Adjudicator Jurisdiction, Time Limits for Adjudication, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice in Adjudication, Appointment Formalities
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA Payment Claim Validity Adjudicator Jurisdiction Time Limits for Adjudication Enforcement of Adjudication 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 157 08/2022; Respondent in O.s. No. WA 24 C 164 08/2022

CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 157 08/2022; Applicant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 164 08/2022

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Applications to Set Aside/stay an Adjudication Decision and to Enforce an Adjudication Decision; Judgment on Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Payment Claim complied with s 5(2) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by issuing the decision outside the 45 working day period under s 12(2) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator’s appointment was invalid for lack of signature on the appointment request (Form 5)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Payment Claim met the statutory threshold under s 5(2) CIPAA when assessed objectively; the Adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction, the Adjudication Decision was made and delivered within the permissible timeframe (taking into account the withholding mechanism under s 19(5)), the appointment was valid despite lack of signature, there was no breach of natural justice, and accordingly the Setting Aside and Stay Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Application allowed. Costs were awarded to the successful party in the sums ordered by the Court.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.

Orders

  • Setting Aside and Stay Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-157-08/2022) dismissed.
  • Enforcement Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-164-08/2022) allowed and Adjudication Decision enforced.