CRCC MALAYSIA BERHAD TWIN PAVILION DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

CRCC MALAYSIA BERHAD TWIN PAVILION DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The Court upheld CRCC's preliminary objection that Twin Pavilion's Affidavit In Support filed only in English contravened Rules of Court O.92 r.1(1), resulting in no valid AIS to support the Setting Aside Application; alternatively, on the merits the Court found no material denial of natural justice because the Adjudicator reasonably exercised his discretion under s25 CIPAA in refusing to extend time, Twin Pavilion failed to present what material evidence it would have produced, and the AD correctly assessed IPC No.7. Consequently the Setting Aside and Stay Applications were dismissed and the Enforcement Application was allowed; costs were apportioned and awarded.

Citation
WA-24C-46-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. No.25); Defendant (o.s. No.46): Twin Pavilion Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant (o.s. No.25); Plaintiff (o.s. No.46): CRCC Malaysia Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 July 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-46-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cipaa Setting Aside & Enforcement) / High Court Judgment (construction Court 2)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Setting Aside, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem), Apparent Bias, Rules of Court Language Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA Setting Aside Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem) Apparent Bias +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Twin Pavilion Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (o.s. No.25); Defendant (o.s. No.46)

CRCC Malaysia Berhad

Defendant (o.s. No.25); Plaintiff (o.s. No.46)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cipaa Setting Aside & Enforcement) / High Court Judgment (construction Court 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a denial of natural justice by the Adjudicator in refusing extension of time and not considering novation and documents
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator acted independently or impartially
  3. 3 Whether Twin Pavilion's affidavit in English only breached O.92 r.1(1) Rules of Court and is fatal to the Setting Aside Application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld CRCC's preliminary objection that Twin Pavilion's Affidavit In Support filed only in English contravened Rules of Court O.92 r.1(1), resulting in no valid AIS to support the Setting Aside Application; alternatively, on the merits the Court found no material denial of natural justice because the Adjudicator reasonably exercised his discretion under s25 CIPAA in refusing to extend time, Twin Pavilion failed to present what material evidence it would have produced, and the AD correctly assessed IPC No.7. Consequently the Setting Aside and Stay Applications were dismissed and the Enforcement Application was allowed; costs were apportioned and awarded.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed