OFFICE 2 GO (M) SDN BHD PROBINA PROJEK SDN BHD

OFFICE 2 GO (M) SDN BHD PROBINA PROJEK SDN BHD

The Court dismissed the setting aside and stay applications and allowed enforcement: the adjudicator had considered the VIR and gave reasons for rejecting it, O2G failed to prove denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction, O2G failed to demonstrate clear and unequivocal errors or a realistic risk that Probina cannot repay such that a stay under s16 CIPAA was justified, and the procedural omission of exhibiting a certified true copy of the AD was curable by court order requiring Probina to file a CTC within seven working days.

Citation
WA-24C-71-03/2020 & WA-24C-93-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 71 03/2020; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 93 05/2020: Office 2 Go (M) Sdn Bhd; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 71 03/2020; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 93 05/2020: Probina Projek Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 January 2021
Case Number
WA-24C-71-03/2020 & WA-24C-93-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cipaa Applications) / High Court Judgment on Applications (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Stay of Enforcement Under S16 CIPAA, Natural Justice and Impartiality, Jurisdictional Limits of Adjudicator, Procedure Under Rules of Court 2012
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Civil Procedure Company Law Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Stay of Enforcement Under S16 CIPAA Natural Justice and Impartiality +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Office 2 Go (M) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 71 03/2020; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 93 05/2020

Probina Projek Sdn Bhd

Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 71 03/2020; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 93 05/2020

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cipaa Applications) / High Court Judgment on Applications (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudication Decision (AD) should be set aside under s15 CIPAA for denial of natural justice, lack of independence/impartiality or excess of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether a stay of enforcement under s16 CIPAA should be granted for clear and unequivocal errors or justice of the case and risk of non-repayment
  3. 3 Whether the Enforcement Application under s28 CIPAA should be allowed to enforce the AD as a High Court judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the setting aside and stay applications and allowed enforcement: the adjudicator had considered the VIR and gave reasons for rejecting it, O2G failed to prove denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction, O2G failed to demonstrate clear and unequivocal errors or a realistic risk that Probina cannot repay such that a stay under s16 CIPAA was justified, and the procedural omission of exhibiting a certified true copy of the AD was curable by court order requiring Probina to file a CTC within seven working days.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs RM4,500.00
  • Stay Application dismissed with costs RM500.00