1. ) BLUEDREAM CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (BA-24C-27-03/2020) (Co. No.: 914950-X) 2. ) PEMBINAAN BINA BUMI SDN. BHD. (BA-24C-76-08/2020) (Co. No.: 854736-K) 1. ) PEMBINAAN BINA BUMI SDN. BHD. (BA-24C-27-03/2020) (Co. No.: 854736-K) 2. ) BLU

1. ) BLUEDREAM CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (BA-24C-27-03/2020) (Co. No.: 914950-X) 2. ) PEMBINAAN BINA BUMI SDN. BHD. (BA-24C-76-08/2020) (Co. No.: 854736-K) 1. ) PEMBINAAN BINA BUMI SDN. BHD. (BA-24C-27-03/2020) (Co. No.: 854736-K) 2. ) BLU

The court dismissed BCD's application to set aside and its stay application and granted PBB leave to enforce because the Settlement Agreement did not extinguish the Interim Certificate No.4R sum, the adjudicator had jurisdiction and did not commit a breach of natural justice or s12(4) warranting setting aside, and although new evidence may be admissible in a s15 application a party must explain why it was not produced in adjudication and BCD failed to provide such explanation or admissible proof to contradict the written SA.

Citation
BA-24C-27-03/2020 & BA-24C-76-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os BA 24 C 27 03/2020) and Defendant (os BA 24 C 76 08/2020): Bluedream City Development Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (os BA 24 C 27 03/2020) and Plaintiff (os BA 24 C 76 08/2020): Pembinaan Bina Bumi Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Case Number
BA-24C-27-03/2020 & BA-24C-76-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA / Judgment (final Hearing of Two Originating Summons Heard Together)
Outcome
BCD's Setting Aside Application dismissed; BCD's Stay Application dismissed; PBB's Enforcement Application allowed; costs for one set to PBB.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Stay of Enforcement, Admissibility of New Evidence, Contract Interpretation, Natural Justice, Statutory Jurisdiction
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Arbitration Equity (estoppel) Adjudication Under CIPAA Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bluedream City Development Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff (os BA 24 C 27 03/2020) and Defendant (os BA 24 C 76 08/2020)

Pembinaan Bina Bumi Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant (os BA 24 C 27 03/2020) and Plaintiff (os BA 24 C 76 08/2020)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA / Judgment (final Hearing of Two Originating Summons Heard Together)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party can adduce new evidence in a s15 CIPAA setting aside application when that evidence was not before the adjudicator and, if so, whether a reasonable explanation was required
  2. 2 Whether the Settlement Agreement (SA) extinguished the Interim Certificate No.4R sum
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction under CIPAA to determine PBB's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed BCD's application to set aside and its stay application and granted PBB leave to enforce because the Settlement Agreement did not extinguish the Interim Certificate No.4R sum, the adjudicator had jurisdiction and did not commit a breach of natural justice or s12(4) warranting setting aside, and although new evidence may be admissible in a s15 application a party must explain why it was not produced in adjudication and BCD failed to provide such explanation or admissible proof to contradict the written SA.

Court Disposition

BCD's Setting Aside Application dismissed; BCD's Stay Application dismissed; PBB's Enforcement Application allowed; costs for one set to PBB.

Orders

  • Dismissal of Bluedream City Development Sdn. Bhd.'s setting aside application
  • Dismissal of Bluedream City Development Sdn. Bhd.'s stay application under s16 CIPAA