Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd

Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd

TM failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the adjudicator acted with apparent bias or denied natural justice or that the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction such that the Adjudication Decision must be set aside. Charging fees below LAM minimum did not render the LoA void as a matter of law. However, because an unresolved factual and legal issue remained as to whether an unregistered person acted as architect (a matter raised in Suit 479), it was just to stay enforcement of the Adjudication Decision pending disposal of that suit; accordingly the enforcement and setting-aside applications were dismissed and a stay of the adjudication award was granted pending Suit 479.

Citation
WA-24C-99-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 85 07/2021; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 99 07/2021: ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 85 07/2021; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 99 07/2021: Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 October 2021
Case Number
WA-24C-99-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Adjudication Enforcement and Setting Aside (originating Summons) / Interlocutory Applications: Enforcement, Setting Aside and Stay
Legal Topics
CIPAA S15 Set Aside, CIPAA S16 Stay, CIPAA S28 Enforcement, Adjudicator Jurisdiction (s27), Natural Justice and Bias, Architects' Regulatory Compliance and Fee Scales, Illegality of Contract
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Administrative Law Contract Law Professional Regulation CIPAA S15 Set Aside CIPAA S16 Stay CIPAA S28 Enforcement Adjudicator Jurisdiction (s27) +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 85 07/2021; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 99 07/2021

Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd

Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 85 07/2021; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 99 07/2021

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Adjudication Enforcement and Setting Aside (originating Summons) / Interlocutory Applications: Enforcement, Setting Aside and Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted with bias or denied natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the contract was illegal for breaching Architects Rules/Scale of Minimum Fees

Ratio Decidendi

TM failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the adjudicator acted with apparent bias or denied natural justice or that the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction such that the Adjudication Decision must be set aside. Charging fees below LAM minimum did not render the LoA void as a matter of law. However, because an unresolved factual and legal issue remained as to whether an unregistered person acted as architect (a matter raised in Suit 479), it was just to stay enforcement of the Adjudication Decision pending disposal of that suit; accordingly the enforcement and setting-aside applications were dismissed and a stay of the adjudication award was granted pending Suit 479.