1. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

1. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

The court held the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction: the rectified amounts were corrections to earlier interim/payment claims and thus constituted unpaid items eligible under ss4-5 CIPAA; consideration of supporting documents (including RFIs and materials in claimant's possession or generated by respondent) did not oust jurisdiction and was within s25 powers; the 2nd stay application was procedurally flawed and, in any event, barred by issue estoppel because the same allegations (corruption and financial impecuniosity) had been considered and rejected in an earlier stay application; accordingly the applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed and the enforcement...

Citation
WA-24C-181-08/2020, WA-24C-182-08/2020 & WA-24C-213-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in Two Suits; Defendant in One: Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd; Plaintiff in One Suit; Defendant in Two: Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 December 2020
Case Number
WA-24C-181-08/2020, WA-24C-182-08/2020 & WA-24C-213-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Hearing of Applications to Set Aside Adjudication Decision, to Stay Adjudication Pending Arbitration and to Enforce Adjudication Decision; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; 2nd Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Under S15 CIPAA, Stay of Adjudication Decision Under S16 CIPAA, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under S28 CIPAA, Jurisdictional Limits of Adjudicator, Validity and Contents of Payment Claim Under Ss4 5 CIPAA, Admissibility and Weight of Supporting Documents in Adjudication, Severance of Adjudication Decision, Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel, Suspension of Works Under S29 CIPAA, Court Procedure O.69 a Rules of Court
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Arbitration Civil Procedure Evidence Company/ Insolvency Law Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Under S15 CIPAA Stay of Adjudication Decision Under S16 CIPAA +8 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 8 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in Two Suits; Defendant in One

Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in One Suit; Defendant in Two

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Hearing of Applications to Set Aside Adjudication Decision, to Stay Adjudication Pending Arbitration and to Enforce Adjudication Decision; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by considering rectified/earlier progress claims not previously re-submitted to the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by relying on supporting documents not previously provided to the respondent
  3. 3 Whether a stay under s16(1)(b) CIPAA should be granted pending arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction: the rectified amounts were corrections to earlier interim/payment claims and thus constituted unpaid items eligible under ss4-5 CIPAA; consideration of supporting documents (including RFIs and materials in claimant's possession or generated by respondent) did not oust jurisdiction and was within s25 powers; the 2nd stay application was procedurally flawed and, in any event, barred by issue estoppel because the same allegations (corruption and financial impecuniosity) had been considered and rejected in an earlier stay application; accordingly the applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed and the enforcement...

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; 2nd Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Adjudication Decision dated 4.8.2020 enforced as if a judgment or order of the High Court pursuant to s28 CIPAA
  • Setting Aside Application (O.S. WA-24C-181-08/2020) dismissed