Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd Perbadanan Putrajaya

Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd Perbadanan Putrajaya

The court held the Adjudicator acted within jurisdiction: the Development Agreement qualified as a construction contract under CIPAA; the absence of Joint Auditors' certification did not bar adjudication because of s25(m) and s25(n); section 15 challenge could not succeed absent jurisdictional error; no special circumstances justified a stay; therefore the Adjudication Decision was enforceable under section 28 CIPAA.

Citation
WA-24C-37-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Perbadanan Putrajaya; Respondent/plaintiff: Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
WA-24C-37-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Adjudication Challenge and Enforcement Under CIPAA / Judgment on Originating Summonses
Outcome
Originating Summons WA-24C-24-01/2025 (set aside application) dismissed; Originating Summons WA-24C-25-01/2025 (stay application) dismissed; Originating Summons WA-24C-37-02/2025 (enforcement) allowed.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Section 15 Set Aside, CIPAA Section 16 Stay, CIPAA Section 28 Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Classification of Construction Contract, Stay of Execution
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA Section 15 Set Aside CIPAA Section 16 Stay CIPAA Section 28 Enforcement 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perbadanan Putrajaya

Applicant/defendant

Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Adjudication Challenge and Enforcement Under CIPAA / Judgment on Originating Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Development Agreement is a construction contract within CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by deciding without Joint Auditors' certification
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudication Decision should be stayed pending a civil suit

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Adjudicator acted within jurisdiction: the Development Agreement qualified as a construction contract under CIPAA; the absence of Joint Auditors' certification did not bar adjudication because of s25(m) and s25(n); section 15 challenge could not succeed absent jurisdictional error; no special circumstances justified a stay; therefore the Adjudication Decision was enforceable under section 28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons WA-24C-24-01/2025 (set aside application) dismissed; Originating Summons WA-24C-25-01/2025 (stay application) dismissed; Originating Summons WA-24C-37-02/2025 (enforcement) allowed.

Orders

  • Originating Summons No. WA-24C-24-01/2025 dismissed with costs
  • Originating Summons No. WA-24C-25-01/2025 dismissed with costs