GENTING MALAYSIA BERHAD PLM INTERIORS SN BHD

GENTING MALAYSIA BERHAD PLM INTERIORS SN BHD

Although the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the lawfulness of the termination, he denied natural justice by conceiving and relying on a decisive proposition (that the termination was unreasonable due to employer's withholding of monies affecting contractor cashflow) which was not put to the parties for response; that material denial of the right to be heard required setting aside the adjudication decision.

Citation
WA-24C-204-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in Os1; Defendant in OS2: Genting Malaysia Berhad; Defendant in Os1; Plaintiff in OS2: PLM Interiors Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Case Number
WA-24C-204-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA (set Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Hearing and Judgment on Cross Applications
Outcome
Originating Summons WA-24C-204-10/2019 allowed (set aside adjudication decision); Originating Summons WA-24C-182-09/2019 dismissed (enforcement refused)
Legal Topics
CIPAA S.15 Improperly Procured Adjudication, Adjudicator Jurisdiction S.27 CIPAA, Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem), Prohibition of Conditional Payment S.35 CIPAA, Enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision, Termination of Contractor Employment, PAM Conditions Clause 25.4(d)
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA S.15 Improperly Procured Adjudication Adjudicator Jurisdiction S.27 CIPAA Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem) Prohibition of Conditional Payment S.35 CIPAA +3 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Genting Malaysia Berhad

Plaintiff in Os1; Defendant in OS2

PLM Interiors Sdn Bhd

Defendant in Os1; Plaintiff in OS2

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA (set Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Hearing and Judgment on Cross Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether there was a denial of natural justice by deciding on a fresh decisive proposition not put to parties
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's conclusions on unlawfulness of termination were within matters referred to adjudication

Ratio Decidendi

Although the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the lawfulness of the termination, he denied natural justice by conceiving and relying on a decisive proposition (that the termination was unreasonable due to employer's withholding of monies affecting contractor cashflow) which was not put to the parties for response; that material denial of the right to be heard required setting aside the adjudication decision.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons WA-24C-204-10/2019 allowed (set aside adjudication decision); Originating Summons WA-24C-182-09/2019 dismissed (enforcement refused)

Orders

  • Adjudication decision set aside
  • OS 1 allowed with costs RM10000.00 subject to 4% allocator