TANY SERVICES SDN BHD HAMZAH JAAFAR (P) SDN BHD

TANY SERVICES SDN BHD HAMZAH JAAFAR (P) SDN BHD

TS failed to prove denial of natural justice under s15(b) because it did not adduce required documentary evidence in its adjudication response as required by ss9-11 CIPAA; the adjudicator acted within his discretionary powers under s25 and conducted the adjudication fairly; accordingly OS1 to set aside the decision is dismissed and OS2 to enforce the adjudication decision is allowed under s28 CIPAA.

Citation
wa-24c-218-10/2019 & wa-24c-241-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in Os1; Defendant in OS2: Tany Services Sdn Bhd; Defendant in Os1; Plaintiff in OS2: Hamzah Jaafar (P) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 October 2020
Case Number
wa-24c-218-10/2019 & wa-24c-241-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA / Hearing on Cross Applications to Set Aside and Enforce Adjudication Decision; High Court Judgment Delivered
Outcome
OS1 dismissed; OS2 allowed; adjudication decision enforced
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Adjudicator Powers and Jurisdiction, Evidence and Documentary Production
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Civil Procedure Contract Law Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Natural Justice Adjudicator Powers and Jurisdiction +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tany Services Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in Os1; Defendant in OS2

Hamzah Jaafar (P) Sdn Bhd

Defendant in Os1; Plaintiff in OS2

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA / Hearing on Cross Applications to Set Aside and Enforce Adjudication Decision; High Court Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication decision should be set aside for denial of natural justice under s15(b) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction or failed to accord procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication decision is enforceable as a High Court judgment under s28 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

TS failed to prove denial of natural justice under s15(b) because it did not adduce required documentary evidence in its adjudication response as required by ss9-11 CIPAA; the adjudicator acted within his discretionary powers under s25 and conducted the adjudication fairly; accordingly OS1 to set aside the decision is dismissed and OS2 to enforce the adjudication decision is allowed under s28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

OS1 dismissed; OS2 allowed; adjudication decision enforced

Orders

  • OS1 dismissed with costs of RM3,500.00 subject to 4% allocator
  • OS2 allowed with costs of RM3,500.00 subject to 4% allocator