RA SURIA SDN BHD CEDY THIRD CONSTRCTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD
The court held the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction because the Payment Claim referenced the LoA which incorporated PAM 2006 and the adjudicator legitimately resolved prematurity and payment process issues based on parties' conduct and contemporaneous documents; there was no denial of natural justice because parties were given opportunity to submit and the adjudicator considered evidence and invited further submissions; set‑offs and LDs relied on by RA Suria were not established as contractual entitlements or were unsupported; RA Suria failed to show clear and unequivocal error or insolvency risk to justify a stay; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed...
- Citation
- WA-24C-107-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff / Respondent: RA Suria Sdn Bhd; Defendant / Applicant: CEDY Third Contracting and Trading (M) Sdn Bhd
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 31 October 2022
- Case Number
- WA-24C-107-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) – Setting Aside (s15), Enforcement (s28) and Stay (s16) Applications Heard Together / Judgment Delivered (grounds of Judgment)
- Outcome
- Setting Aside Application and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
- Legal Topics
- CIPAA S15 Setting Aside, CIPAA S16 Stay of Adjudication Decision, CIPAA S28 Enforcement as Judgment, Jurisdictional Limits of Adjudicator, Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness, Set Off and Liquidated Damages
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
RA Suria Sdn Bhd
Plaintiff / Respondent
CEDY Third Contracting and Trading (M) Sdn Bhd
Defendant / Applicant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) – Setting Aside (s15), Enforcement (s28) and Stay (s16) Applications Heard Together / Judgment Delivered (grounds of Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by applying PAM 2006 Clause 30.1 instead of LoA Clause 6
- 2 Whether there was denial of natural justice by failing to consider evidence and set-offs including liquidated damages and third‑party costs
- 3 Whether a party who seeks to enforce part of an adjudication decision but disputes other parts can be estopped (approbate and reprobate)
Ratio Decidendi
The court held the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction because the Payment Claim referenced the LoA which incorporated PAM 2006 and the adjudicator legitimately resolved prematurity and payment process issues based on parties' conduct and contemporaneous documents; there was no denial of natural justice because parties were given opportunity to submit and the adjudicator considered evidence and invited further submissions; set‑offs and LDs relied on by RA Suria were not established as contractual entitlements or were unsupported; RA Suria failed to show clear and unequivocal error or insolvency risk to justify a stay; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed...
Court Disposition
Setting Aside Application and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment