MAPLE STEEL SDN. BHD. EAKONMECH SDN. BHD.

MAPLE STEEL SDN. BHD. EAKONMECH SDN. BHD.

The High Court held that the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction: Maple Steel's payment claim and supporting as-built drawings included the variation/remeasurement claims for the L4/L5 smoke spill works so those matters were properly before the adjudicator; the adjudicator was entitled under s 25 CIPAA to review and adjust IPC No.11 (including retention) and to treat design changes as variations where supported; Eakonmech was afforded directions and an opportunity to submit and failed to substantiate grounds of denial of natural justice or jurisdictional excess, therefore the Setting Aside Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Application allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-38-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 217 11/2022); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 38 03/2023): Eakonmech Sdn Bhd; Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 38 03/2023); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 217 11/2022): Maple Steel Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 July 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-38-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Applications Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision / Hearing and Full Grounds of Judgment on Applications to Set Aside an Adjudication Decision and to Enforce the Adjudication Decision; Judgment Delivered (setting Aside Dismissed; Enforcement Allowed)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision as Judgment, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice (right to Be Heard), Variation Works and Remeasurement, Retention and Payment Certificates, Liquidated Ascertained Damages (lad), Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision as Judgment Jurisdiction of Adjudicator +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eakonmech Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 217 11/2022); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 38 03/2023)

Maple Steel Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 38 03/2023); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 217 11/2022)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Applications Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision / Hearing and Full Grounds of Judgment on Applications to Set Aside an Adjudication Decision and to Enforce the Adjudication Decision; Judgment Delivered (setting Aside Dismissed; Enforcement Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding Smoke Spill System works on levels 4 and 5 alleged not to be part of the subcontract
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction in determining the adjusted contract sum and 5% retention deduction
  3. 3 Whether there was denial of natural justice by (a) rewriting the TCS, (b) unilaterally imposing conditions for LAD, and (c) depriving respondent of right to be heard on back charges

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction: Maple Steel's payment claim and supporting as-built drawings included the variation/remeasurement claims for the L4/L5 smoke spill works so those matters were properly before the adjudicator; the adjudicator was entitled under s 25 CIPAA to review and adjust IPC No.11 (including retention) and to treat design changes as variations where supported; Eakonmech was afforded directions and an opportunity to submit and failed to substantiate grounds of denial of natural justice or jurisdictional excess, therefore the Setting Aside Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Application allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-217-11/2022) dismissed with costs RM7,000.00 (subject to allocator)
  • Enforcement Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-38-03/2023) allowed with costs RM3,000.00 (subject to allocator)