TSR BINA SDN BHD HIFORM (M) SDN BHD

TSR BINA SDN BHD HIFORM (M) SDN BHD

The High Court found the adjudicator did not commit material breaches of natural justice nor act beyond her CIPAA jurisdiction: she heard parties, considered remeasurement evidence, gave reasons for preferring the Payment Claim figure, addressed variation orders and time issues as consequential to TSR’s LAD defence, and was entitled to consider time at large. TSR’s new complaints were largely afterthoughts not raised at adjudication. There were no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay; enforcement under s28 CIPAA was therefore granted and the setting aside and stay applications dismissed.

Citation
WA-24C-107-06/2019 & WA-24C-115-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant / Defendant: HIFORM (M) SDN BHD; Respondent / Plaintiff: TSR BINA SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Case Number
WA-24C-107-06/2019 & WA-24C-115-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Adjudication: Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Applications / Applications Heard on Affidavits and Written Submissions; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Setting Aside and Stay Applications dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA S15 Set Aside, CIPAA S16 Stay, CIPAA S28 Enforcement, Extension of Time and Time at Large, Variation Orders and Remeasurement, Interim Payment Certificates, Liquidated Damages, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA S15 Set Aside CIPAA S16 Stay CIPAA S28 Enforcement +6 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HIFORM (M) SDN BHD

Applicant / Defendant

TSR BINA SDN BHD

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Adjudication: Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Applications / Applications Heard on Affidavits and Written Submissions; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator breached natural justice under s15(b) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether adjudicator could consider remeasurement evidence and prefer one report over another

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found the adjudicator did not commit material breaches of natural justice nor act beyond her CIPAA jurisdiction: she heard parties, considered remeasurement evidence, gave reasons for preferring the Payment Claim figure, addressed variation orders and time issues as consequential to TSR’s LAD defence, and was entitled to consider time at large. TSR’s new complaints were largely afterthoughts not raised at adjudication. There were no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay; enforcement under s28 CIPAA was therefore granted and the setting aside and stay applications dismissed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside and Stay Applications dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • O.S. No. WA-24C-115-07/2019 (Setting Aside / Stay) dismissed with costs RM5,000.00
  • O.S. No. WA-24C-107-06/2019 (Enforcement) allowed; Adjudication Decision enforced as judgment of the High Court