CABNET SYSTEMS [M] SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 355065-V) 1. DEKAD KALIBER SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 684176-H) 2. RIMARISAN SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 292492-H)
Novation effected under s63 Contracts Act made the 2nd Defendant the principal of the subcontractor within s4 CIPAA; the Plaintiff satisfied s30 CIPAA conditions and therefore the 2nd Defendant is liable to pay the adjudicated sum together with pre- and post-adjudication interest (but not adjudication costs); such payment does not constitute an undue preference under Companies Act s528(1) in light of CT Indah, and s471(1) did not prohibit commencement of the originating summons; the 1st Defendant is penalized in costs for withholding the novation document.
- Citation
- BA-24C-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Cabnet Systems [M] Sdn. Bhd.; 1st Defendant: Dekad Kaliber Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Defendant: Rimarisan Sdn. Bhd.
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 18 December 2019
- Case Number
- BA-24C-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons Under CIPAA to Enforce Adjudication Decision / High Court Judgment Delivered (final)
- Outcome
- Originating Summons allowed in part in favour of Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant; declaratory and payment orders made against 2nd Defendant; costs awarded to Plaintiff against both Defendants.
- Legal Topics
- CIPAA S30 Direct Payment, Novation Under S63 Contracts Act 1950, Undue Preference Under Companies Act 2016 S528, Leave to Commence Proceedings After Winding Up S471 CA 2016, Interpretation of "adjudicated Amount", Costs (rules of Court O 59)
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cabnet Systems [M] Sdn. Bhd.
Plaintiff
Dekad Kaliber Sdn. Bhd.
1st Defendant
Rimarisan Sdn. Bhd.
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA to Enforce Adjudication Decision / High Court Judgment Delivered (final)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether novation under s63 Contracts Act made 2nd Defendant the "principal" of the subcontractor within s4 read with s30 CIPAA
- 2 Whether payment by the principal to the adjudication successful party would constitute an undue preference under s528(1) Companies Act 2016 given the subcontractor's winding up
- 3 Whether leave of the winding up court under s471(1) Companies Act 2016 was required before commencing the originating summons
Ratio Decidendi
Novation effected under s63 Contracts Act made the 2nd Defendant the principal of the subcontractor within s4 CIPAA; the Plaintiff satisfied s30 CIPAA conditions and therefore the 2nd Defendant is liable to pay the adjudicated sum together with pre- and post-adjudication interest (but not adjudication costs); such payment does not constitute an undue preference under Companies Act s528(1) in light of CT Indah, and s471(1) did not prohibit commencement of the originating summons; the 1st Defendant is penalized in costs for withholding the novation document.
Court Disposition
Originating Summons allowed in part in favour of Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant; declaratory and payment orders made against 2nd Defendant; costs awarded to Plaintiff against both Defendants.
Orders
- Declaration that the 2nd Defendant is liable as SSB's principal to pay the Adjudicated Sum and pre- and post-adjudication interest (excluding adjudication costs)
- Order that the 2nd Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the Adjudicated Sum, pre-AD interest and post-AD interest (adjudication costs excluded) pursuant to s30 CIPAA
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment