INFINITE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD VICTORY BUILDERS SDN BHD

INFINITE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD VICTORY BUILDERS SDN BHD

The Court dismissed the application to set aside the adjudication decision because Infinite's complaints were merits-based, no material denial of natural justice was shown (documents were non-decisive, Infinite had notice and no demonstrable prejudice), and the Adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by CIPAA; the enforcement application succeeded and the adjudication decision was ordered enforced as a High Court judgment.

Citation
BA-24C-20-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant (in BA 24 C 20 04/2025) and Defendant/respondent (in BA 24 C 25 04/2025): Infinite Project Management Sdn Bhd; Defendant/respondent (in BA 24 C 20 04/2025) and Plaintiff/applicant (in BA 24 C 25 04/2025): Victory Builders Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 February 2026
Case Number
BA-24C-20-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Involving Set Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision / High Court Hearing and Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Adjudication Decision (s15 Cipaa) and to Enforce Adjudication Decision as Judgment (s28 Cipaa)
Outcome
OS 20 (set aside application by Infinite) dismissed; OS 25 (enforcement application by Victory Builders) allowed; costs awarded to Victory Builders
Legal Topics
CIPAA S15 Set Aside, CIPAA S28 Enforcement, Natural Justice, Jurisdictional Excess, Adjudication Procedure
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Administrative Law Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA S15 Set Aside CIPAA S28 Enforcement Natural Justice Jurisdictional Excess +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Infinite Project Management Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff/applicant (in BA 24 C 20 04/2025) and Defendant/respondent (in BA 24 C 25 04/2025)

Victory Builders Sdn Bhd

Defendant/respondent (in BA 24 C 20 04/2025) and Plaintiff/applicant (in BA 24 C 25 04/2025)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Involving Set Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision / High Court Hearing and Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Adjudication Decision (s15 Cipaa) and to Enforce Adjudication Decision as Judgment (s28 Cipaa)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was denial of natural justice under s15(b) CIPAA by the Adjudicator considering documents (CBD 3) without affording Infinite opportunity to respond
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA by effectively rewriting Term 2 of the Purchase Order
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication decision should be enforced under s28 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application to set aside the adjudication decision because Infinite's complaints were merits-based, no material denial of natural justice was shown (documents were non-decisive, Infinite had notice and no demonstrable prejudice), and the Adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by CIPAA; the enforcement application succeeded and the adjudication decision was ordered enforced as a High Court judgment.

Court Disposition

OS 20 (set aside application by Infinite) dismissed; OS 25 (enforcement application by Victory Builders) allowed; costs awarded to Victory Builders

Orders

  • OS 20 dismissed with costs of RM5000.00 to be borne and paid by Infinite Project Management Sdn Bhd to Victory Builders Sdn Bhd, subject to allocator
  • OS 25 allowed with costs of RM5000.00 to be borne and paid by Infinite Project Management Sdn Bhd to Victory Builders Sdn Bhd, subject to allocator