JETSON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD MERCU BINARAYA SDN BHD

JETSON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD MERCU BINARAYA SDN BHD

The court dismissed the setting aside application and held the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction nor deny natural justice: Jetson failed to comply with the strict s10 timeline, the adjudicator lawfully exercised discretion to refuse an extension, and refusal was not perverse; because the adjudication decision was not set aside, settled or finally determined in arbitration or by court, the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-195-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant / Defendant: Jetson Construction Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Plaintiff: Mercu Binaraya Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 April 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-195-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cipaa Setting Aside and Enforcement) / Hearing and Judgment (final Decision)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.
Legal Topics
CIPAA S15 Set Aside, CIPAA S28 Enforcement, Natural Justice, Adjudicator Jurisdiction, Extension of Time, Payment Claim and Response
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication and Arbitration Civil Procedure Commercial Law CIPAA S15 Set Aside CIPAA S28 Enforcement Natural Justice Adjudicator Jurisdiction +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jetson Construction Sdn Bhd

Applicant / Defendant

Mercu Binaraya Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cipaa Setting Aside and Enforcement) / Hearing and Judgment (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudication decision dated 6.11.2023 should be set aside under s15(b) and s15(d) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction because claimant was not an "unpaid party" due to alleged set-off/counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether there was denial of natural justice in refusing extension of time and not considering late Adjudication Response

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the setting aside application and held the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction nor deny natural justice: Jetson failed to comply with the strict s10 timeline, the adjudicator lawfully exercised discretion to refuse an extension, and refusal was not perverse; because the adjudication decision was not set aside, settled or finally determined in arbitration or by court, the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs of MYR6000.00 subject to allocator
  • Enforcement Application allowed; Adjudication Decision dated 6.11.2023 enforced as if a High Court judgment