JURUTERA PERUNDING GEA SDN BHD SGB ASSETS SDN BHD

JURUTERA PERUNDING GEA SDN BHD SGB ASSETS SDN BHD

The High Court allowed the appeal because the civil claim in Suit 62 (invoices for Stages 3 and 4) is materially different from the earlier CIPAA adjudication (invoices for Stages 1 and 2), the claim is not obviously unsustainable on its face, and CIPAA permits concurrent court proceedings since adjudication decisions have only temporary finality; therefore the Sessions Court erred in striking out the Statement of Claim as scandalous, frivolous or an abuse of process.

Citation
WA-12AC-25-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Jurutera Perunding GEA Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Defendant: SGB Assets Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Case Number
WA-12AC-25-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court (construction Payment Dispute) / Judgment on Appeal (re‑hearing)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of Sessions Court striking out Statement of Claim set aside; Suit 62 remitted to the Sessions Court to be heard before another Judge; costs awarded to Appellant.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Strike Out (o.18 R.19), Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Court Process, Concurrent Remedies
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Company Law Adjudication Under CIPAA Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Strike Out (o.18 R.19) Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel Abuse of Court Process +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jurutera Perunding GEA Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Plaintiff

SGB Assets Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court (construction Payment Dispute) / Judgment on Appeal (re‑hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim is scandalous, frivolous or an abuse of process under O.18 r.19(1)(b) and (d) Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff’s civil claim for unpaid invoices for Stages 3 and 4 is barred by res judicata or estoppel arising from an earlier CIPAA adjudication concerning Stages 1 and 2
  3. 3 Whether adjudication under CIPAA yields finality that precludes concurrent court proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because the civil claim in Suit 62 (invoices for Stages 3 and 4) is materially different from the earlier CIPAA adjudication (invoices for Stages 1 and 2), the claim is not obviously unsustainable on its face, and CIPAA permits concurrent court proceedings since adjudication decisions have only temporary finality; therefore the Sessions Court erred in striking out the Statement of Claim as scandalous, frivolous or an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of Sessions Court striking out Statement of Claim set aside; Suit 62 remitted to the Sessions Court to be heard before another Judge; costs awarded to Appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of the Sessions Court dated 27.5.2021 striking out the Statement of Claim and dismissing the claim set aside