Era Universe Development Sdn Bhd KEN LIP CONSTRUCTIONS & TRADING SDN. BHD.

Era Universe Development Sdn Bhd KEN LIP CONSTRUCTIONS & TRADING SDN. BHD.

The High Court dismissed the application to set aside because the applicant failed to establish any of the statutory s15 grounds and merely attacked the merits; the enforcement application succeeded because there was an adjudication decision in favour of the applicant and non‑payment, and no valid bar to enforcement under CIPAA.

Citation
JA-24C-19-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant in Os19; Defendant in OS21: Era Universe Development Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent in Os19; Plaintiff in OS21: Ken Lip Constructions & Trading Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 August 2024
Case Number
JA-24C-19-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons to Set Aside and to Enforce Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 / High Court Judgment (31 January 2025); Appeals Filed to Court of Appeal
Outcome
OS 19 dismissed; OS 21 allowed; appeals to Court of Appeal filed by Era Universe against both decisions.
Legal Topics
CIPAA S15 Setting Aside, CIPAA S28 Enforcement, Natural Justice, Apparent Bias, Excess of Jurisdiction, Limitation/statute Barred
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA S15 Setting Aside CIPAA S28 Enforcement Natural Justice Apparent Bias +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Era Universe Development Sdn. Bhd.

Applicant in Os19; Defendant in OS21

Ken Lip Constructions & Trading Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent in Os19; Plaintiff in OS21

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons to Set Aside and to Enforce Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 / High Court Judgment (31 January 2025); Appeals Filed to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication decision could be set aside under s15 CIPAA (fraud, denial of natural justice, lack of independence/impartiality, excess of jurisdiction)
  2. 2 Whether High Court may review merits of adjudicator's decision
  3. 3 Whether adjudication decision is enforceable under s28 CIPAA given non-payment

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed the application to set aside because the applicant failed to establish any of the statutory s15 grounds and merely attacked the merits; the enforcement application succeeded because there was an adjudication decision in favour of the applicant and non‑payment, and no valid bar to enforcement under CIPAA.

Court Disposition

OS 19 dismissed; OS 21 allowed; appeals to Court of Appeal filed by Era Universe against both decisions.

Orders

  • OS 19 dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 payable by Era Universe Development Sdn. Bhd. to Ken Lip Constructions & Trading Sdn. Bhd. subject to allocator fee.
  • OS 21 allowed with costs of RM5,000.00 payable by Ken Lip Constructions & Trading Sdn. Bhd. to Era Universe Development Sdn. Bhd. subject to allocator fee.