MERCU BINARAYA SDN BHD JETSON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

MERCU BINARAYA SDN BHD JETSON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

The court found no breach of natural justice nor excess of jurisdiction: Jetson failed to comply with CIPAA timelines, the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably exercised discretion to refuse extension, and the AD therefore stands and is enforceable; Setting Aside Application dismissed and Enforcement Application allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-201-12/2023 (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-201-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Applications Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Setting Aside Application Under S15 and Enforcement Application Under S28; Judgment on Applications
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.
Legal Topics
CIPAA S15 Setting Aside, CIPAA S28 Enforcement, Natural Justice (procedural Fairness), Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Extension of Time, Payment Claim and Set Off
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA S15 Setting Aside CIPAA S28 Enforcement Natural Justice (procedural Fairness) Jurisdiction of Adjudicator +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jetson Construction Sdn Bhd

Applicant / Defendant

Mercu Binaraya Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Applications Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Setting Aside Application Under S15 and Enforcement Application Under S28; Judgment on Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding despite a late Adjudication Response
  2. 2 Whether there was denial of natural justice by refusing extension of time and not considering the late response
  3. 3 Whether claimant qualified as an "unpaid party" under s4 CIPAA given respondent's asserted set-offs/counterclaims

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no breach of natural justice nor excess of jurisdiction: Jetson failed to comply with CIPAA timelines, the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably exercised discretion to refuse extension, and the AD therefore stands and is enforceable; Setting Aside Application dismissed and Enforcement Application allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.

Orders

  • Adjudication Decision enforced as judgment of the High Court under s28 CIPAA
  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs of MYR 6,000.00 (subject to allocator)