AWP PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. CARLSON CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

AWP PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. CARLSON CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

The AD was partly set aside because the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by determining the termination to be unlawful and defective when the contract was pleaded as mutually terminated and the issue of validity of termination was not contested, thereby depriving AWP of its set‑off; conversely the court found no breach of natural justice regarding the 'time at large' finding and declined to disturb that factual/legal conclusion.

Citation
WA-24C-65-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os62); Defendant (os65 & Os66): Carlson Construction Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os62); Plaintiff (os65 & Os66): AWP Properties Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-65-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Adjudication Challenge, Enforcement and Stay Applications / Judgment on Originating Summonses Os62, OS65 and OS66 (high Court)
Outcome
OS65 allowed in part (prayers 1 and 2 of enclosure 1 granted); OS62 for enforcement dismissed; OS66 for stay rendered academic and dismissed as moot
Legal Topics
CIPAA S15 Set Aside, CIPAA S16 Stay, CIPAA S28 Enforcement, Time at Large, Liquidated Ascertained Damages, Termination, Natural Justice
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Contract Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Law CIPAA S15 Set Aside CIPAA S16 Stay CIPAA S28 Enforcement +4 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carlson Construction Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os62); Defendant (os65 & Os66)

AWP Properties Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os62); Plaintiff (os65 & Os66)

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Adjudication Challenge, Enforcement and Stay Applications / Judgment on Originating Summonses Os62, OS65 and OS66 (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication decision should be set aside under s15 CIPAA for excess of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether time was at large and effect on LAD entitlement
  3. 3 Whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by determining termination unlawfully when not in issue

Ratio Decidendi

The AD was partly set aside because the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by determining the termination to be unlawful and defective when the contract was pleaded as mutually terminated and the issue of validity of termination was not contested, thereby depriving AWP of its set‑off; conversely the court found no breach of natural justice regarding the 'time at large' finding and declined to disturb that factual/legal conclusion.

Court Disposition

OS65 allowed in part (prayers 1 and 2 of enclosure 1 granted); OS62 for enforcement dismissed; OS66 for stay rendered academic and dismissed as moot

Orders

  • Allow prayers 1 and 2 of enclosure 1 in OS65 (set aside the Adjudication Decision insofar as adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction on termination)
  • Dismiss OS62 (application to enforce the Adjudication Decision) with costs