PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD

PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD

The court refused the extension because the applicant had not applied to set aside the adjudication decision under s.15 CIPAA and had defaulted the conditional stay terms; therefore the stay was revoked and the adjudication decision was enforceable, and MKPB satisfied the requirements for enforcement under the authorities cited.

Citation
wa-24c-42-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in Stay Os; Defendant in Enforcement OS: PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD; Defendant in Stay Os; Plaintiff in Enforcement OS: MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 February 2021
Case Number
wa-24c-42-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 Applications (extension of Time and Enforcement) / High Court Decision on Originating Summons (interlocutory Applications)
Outcome
EOT application dismissed; Enforcement application allowed.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Extension of Time to Comply With Stay Order, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Under S.15 CIPAA, Direct Payment Under S.30 CIPAA
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Civil Procedure Contract Law Enforcement of Adjudication Awards Adjudication Enforcement Extension of Time to Comply With Stay Order Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Under S.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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Plaintiff in Stay Os; Defendant in Enforcement OS

MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD

Defendant in Stay Os; Plaintiff in Enforcement OS

Procedural Posture

Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 Applications (extension of Time and Enforcement) / High Court Decision on Originating Summons (interlocutory Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to comply with the stay order should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the adjudication decision can be enforced despite substantive challenges absent an application to set aside under s.15 CIPAA
  3. 3 Effect of non-compliance with conditional stay terms on the subsistence of the stay

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the extension because the applicant had not applied to set aside the adjudication decision under s.15 CIPAA and had defaulted the conditional stay terms; therefore the stay was revoked and the adjudication decision was enforceable, and MKPB satisfied the requirements for enforcement under the authorities cited.

Court Disposition

EOT application dismissed; Enforcement application allowed.

Orders

  • EOT application dismissed with costs of RM7,500.00 subject to 4% allocator
  • Enforcement originating summons allowed with costs of RM4,000.00 subject to 4% allocator