Perbadanan Putrajaya DAMANSARA REALTY (JOHOR) SDN. BHD.

Perbadanan Putrajaya DAMANSARA REALTY (JOHOR) SDN. BHD.

The court held the Development Agreement fell within CIPAA as a construction agreement; the adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction by deciding without Joint Auditors' certification because sections 25(m) and 25(n) empower the adjudicator to decide notwithstanding absent certificates; consequently the Adjudication Decision was not set aside, the stay was refused, and enforcement was allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-24-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Perbadanan Putrajaya; Respondent/plaintiff: Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
WA-24C-24-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Judgment/determination (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Originating Summons WA-24C-24-01/2025 and WA-24C-25-01/2025 dismissed; Originating Summons WA-24C-37-02/2025 allowed; Adjudication Decision dated 10.01.2025 enforced.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Stay of Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Certification Requirement/joint Auditors
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Civil Procedure Contract Law Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Stay of Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Jurisdiction of Adjudicator +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perbadanan Putrajaya

Applicant/defendant

Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Judgment/determination (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Development Agreement is a construction contract within CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by deciding absent Joint Auditors' certification
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudication Decision should be stayed pending civil proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Development Agreement fell within CIPAA as a construction agreement; the adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction by deciding without Joint Auditors' certification because sections 25(m) and 25(n) empower the adjudicator to decide notwithstanding absent certificates; consequently the Adjudication Decision was not set aside, the stay was refused, and enforcement was allowed.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons WA-24C-24-01/2025 and WA-24C-25-01/2025 dismissed; Originating Summons WA-24C-37-02/2025 allowed; Adjudication Decision dated 10.01.2025 enforced.

Orders

  • Dismiss Originating Summons No. WA-24C-24-01/2025 (set aside application) with costs
  • Dismiss Originating Summons No. WA-24C-25-01/2025 (stay application) with costs