MAJU HEALTHCARE SDN BHD MERCU HARAPAN SDN BHD

MAJU HEALTHCARE SDN BHD MERCU HARAPAN SDN BHD

On the balance of probabilities the Adjudication Claim was validly served at the respondent’s registered and usual business addresses under s38(b) CIPAA; the respondent had notice and opportunity to participate but chose not to, therefore no breach of natural justice occurred; defects in the affidavit were corrected and caused no prejudice, and the statutory grounds in s15 CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision were not made out; accordingly the court dismissed the set aside application and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision.

Citation
WA-24C-192-11/2024 (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-192-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision Under Cipaa) / Judgment of the High Court (decision on OS144 and Os192)
Outcome
OS 192 (Maju’s application to set aside adjudication decision) dismissed; OS 144 (Mercu’s application to enforce adjudication decision) allowed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Service of Documents Under CIPAA, Natural Justice and Participation in Adjudication, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Under Section 15 CIPAA, Rules of Court Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution (adjudication) Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Service of Documents Under CIPAA Natural Justice and Participation in Adjudication Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Under Section 15 CIPAA +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 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

Originating Summons (enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision Under Cipaa) / Judgment of the High Court (decision on OS144 and Os192)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudication Claim was validly served on the respondent under section 38(b) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator’s decision delivered in the respondent’s absence violated natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the grounds in section 15(b),(c),(d) CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision were made out

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Adjudication Claim was validly served at the respondent’s registered and usual business addresses under s38(b) CIPAA; the respondent had notice and opportunity to participate but chose not to, therefore no breach of natural justice occurred; defects in the affidavit were corrected and caused no prejudice, and the statutory grounds in s15 CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision were not made out; accordingly the court dismissed the set aside application and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision.

Court Disposition

OS 192 (Maju’s application to set aside adjudication decision) dismissed; OS 144 (Mercu’s application to enforce adjudication decision) allowed

Orders

  • Dismiss OS 192 with costs.
  • Allow prayers 1, 2(a) to (d) and 3 of enclosure 1 in OS 144 (enforcement of the Adjudication Decision dated 18 July 2023).