CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD RA SURIA SDN BHD

CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD RA SURIA SDN BHD

The court found the adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the payment claim and the incorporated PAM 2006 terms, there was no breach of natural justice material to the outcome, and no clear and unequivocal error or special circumstance to justify a stay; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application was allowed, with costs awarded to CEDY.

Citation
WA-24C-120-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. No. 107 & O.s. No. 122); Respondent (o.s. No. 120): RA Suria Sdn Bhd; Defendant (o.s. No. 107 & O.s. No. 122); Applicant (o.s. No. 120): CEDY Third Contracting and Trading (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 October 2022
Case Number
WA-24C-120-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Relating to Setting Aside, Enforcement and Stay Applications / Full Grounds of Judgment Disposing of the Interlocutory Applications; Enforcement Ordered
Outcome
Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. 107) dismissed; Stay Application (O.S. No. 122) dismissed; Enforcement Application (O.S. No. 120) allowed.
Legal Topics
CIPAA S15 Set Aside, CIPAA S28 Enforcement, CIPAA S16 Stay, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Contract Interpretation (lo a V PAM 2006)
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA S15 Set Aside CIPAA S28 Enforcement CIPAA S16 Stay Natural Justice +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RA Suria Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (o.s. No. 107 & O.s. No. 122); Respondent (o.s. No. 120)

CEDY Third Contracting and Trading (M) Sdn Bhd

Defendant (o.s. No. 107 & O.s. No. 122); Applicant (o.s. No. 120)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Relating to Setting Aside, Enforcement and Stay Applications / Full Grounds of Judgment Disposing of the Interlocutory Applications; Enforcement Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by applying Clause 30.1 of PAM 2006 instead of Clause 6 of the Letter of Award
  2. 2 Whether there was denial of natural justice by failure to consider evidence, set-offs and deductions
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication decision should be stayed pending related court proceedings (Suit No. 5)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the payment claim and the incorporated PAM 2006 terms, there was no breach of natural justice material to the outcome, and no clear and unequivocal error or special circumstance to justify a stay; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application was allowed, with costs awarded to CEDY.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. 107) dismissed; Stay Application (O.S. No. 122) dismissed; Enforcement Application (O.S. No. 120) allowed.

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-107-05/2022) dismissed with costs of RM5,500.00 to be paid by RA Suria to CEDY, subject to allocatur
  • Stay Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-122-06/2022) dismissed with costs of RM3,500.00 to be paid by RA Suria to CEDY, subject to allocatur