ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court: appellant failed to demonstrate the requisite clear error by the adjudicator or special circumstances/justice of the case to justify a stay under s.16 CIPAA; factual findings by the adjudicator are not readily reviewable and there was no material breach of natural justice or jurisdictional excess; respondent's financial capacity further negated the need for a stay given CIPAA's objective of preserving cashflow.

Citation
W-02(C)(A)-443-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Case Number
W-02(C)(A)-443-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (stay Application Under Cipaa) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed; Final)
Legal Topics
Stay of Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Set Off/counterclaim, Liquidated and Ascertained Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Stay of Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Natural Justice +2 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (stay Application Under Cipaa) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed; Final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of an adjudication decision pending arbitration should be granted under s.16 of CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator committed denial of natural justice or acted in excess of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether there was a clear error sufficient to justify a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court: appellant failed to demonstrate the requisite clear error by the adjudicator or special circumstances/justice of the case to justify a stay under s.16 CIPAA; factual findings by the adjudicator are not readily reviewable and there was no material breach of natural justice or jurisdictional excess; respondent's financial capacity further negated the need for a stay given CIPAA's objective of preserving cashflow.