ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

Court held the Payment Claim provided sufficient basic information under s 5(2) CIPAA and the adjudicator had competency jurisdiction to decide the disputed items; the adjudication decision was not rendered void by the withholding/payment deposit procedure and delivery of the AD on 1.8.2022 was within the statutory framework; the adjudicator's appointment was valid despite unsigned request and s 26 treated procedural irregularity as not invalidating jurisdiction; there was no breach of natural justice. Therefore the Setting Aside and Stay Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Application allowed with costs.

Citation
WA-24C-157-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 157 08/2022); Respondent (o.s. No. WA 24 C 164 08/2022): ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD; Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 157 08/2022); Applicant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 164 08/2022): CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 April 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-157-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment on Applications (setting Aside and Stay; Enforcement)
Outcome
Setting Aside and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Payment Claim Validity, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction, Stay Application, Set Off/deductions
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Statutory Adjudication Adjudication Payment Claim Validity Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Natural Justice +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 157 08/2022); Respondent (o.s. No. WA 24 C 164 08/2022)

CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 157 08/2022); Applicant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 164 08/2022)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment on Applications (setting Aside and Stay; Enforcement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Payment Claim complied with s 5(2) CIPAA and thus conferred jurisdiction on the adjudicator
  2. 2 Whether the adjudication decision was void for being issued outside the timeframe under s 12(2)(a) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's appointment was invalid because Form 5 was unsigned

Ratio Decidendi

Court held the Payment Claim provided sufficient basic information under s 5(2) CIPAA and the adjudicator had competency jurisdiction to decide the disputed items; the adjudication decision was not rendered void by the withholding/payment deposit procedure and delivery of the AD on 1.8.2022 was within the statutory framework; the adjudicator's appointment was valid despite unsigned request and s 26 treated procedural irregularity as not invalidating jurisdiction; there was no breach of natural justice. Therefore the Setting Aside and Stay Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Application allowed with costs.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.

Orders

  • Setting Aside and Stay Application dismissed
  • Enforcement Application allowed