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

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

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)

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by applying PAM 2006 Clause 30.1 instead of LoA Clause 6
  2. 2 Whether there was denial of natural justice by failing to consider evidence and set-offs including liquidated damages and third‑party costs
  3. 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