Mercu Harapan Sdn Bhd Maju Healthcare Sdn Bhd

Mercu Harapan Sdn Bhd Maju Healthcare Sdn Bhd

The adjudication decision stands and enforcement is granted because the court found service of the Adjudication Claim was properly effected at the respondent's registered/business address under s38(b) CIPAA, the respondent had notice and failed to participate or take available steps to defend the adjudication, procedural defects were cured and caused no prejudice, and challenges to the merits are not grounds under section 15 CIPAA to set aside the decision.

Citation
WA-24C-144-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os144); Defendant (os192): Mercu Harapan Sdn Bhd; Defendant (os144); Plaintiff (os192): Maju Healthcare Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 March 2025
Case Number
WA-24C-144-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 / Judgment (originating Summons Determined)
Outcome
OS 192 (application to set aside) dismissed with costs; OS 144 (application to enforce) allowed as to prayers 1, 2(a)–(d) and 3; adjudication decision enforced.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Service of Adjudication Claim, Natural Justice and Right to Be Heard, Procedural Compliance With Rules of Court, Grounds to Set Aside Under Section 15 CIPAA
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication/dispute Resolution Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Service of Adjudication Claim Natural Justice and Right to Be Heard Procedural Compliance With Rules of Court Grounds to Set Aside Under Section 15 CIPAA

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercu Harapan Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (os144); Defendant (os192)

Maju Healthcare Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os144); Plaintiff (os192)

Procedural Posture

Enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 / Judgment (originating Summons Determined)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudication Claim was validly served on the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was denied natural justice by non‑participation of the respondent in the adjudication proceedings
  3. 3 Whether procedural defects in affidavits and service justify setting aside the adjudication decision under section 15 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudication decision stands and enforcement is granted because the court found service of the Adjudication Claim was properly effected at the respondent's registered/business address under s38(b) CIPAA, the respondent had notice and failed to participate or take available steps to defend the adjudication, procedural defects were cured and caused no prejudice, and challenges to the merits are not grounds under section 15 CIPAA to set aside the decision.

Court Disposition

OS 192 (application to set aside) dismissed with costs; OS 144 (application to enforce) allowed as to prayers 1, 2(a)–(d) and 3; adjudication decision enforced.

Orders

  • OS 192 dismissed with costs
  • OS 144 allowed: prayers 1, 2(a) to (d) and 3 of enclosure 1 in OS 144 are granted