CHARTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN BHD

CHARTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN BHD

The court held the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the dates of the CMGD and FC and to decide the dispute; the Adjudicator's factual and legal findings are not to be disturbed under section 15 CIPAA absent nullity; no special or exceptional circumstances existed to grant a stay pending arbitration; accordingly the adjudication decision is enforceable and the challenges to it are dismissed.

Citation
WA-24C-136-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (os136); Defendant (os141, Os188): Charter Built Construction Sdn Bhd; Respondent (os136); Plaintiff (os141, Os188): Amalan Setar (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 February 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-136-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Enforcement and Challenges (originating Summonses Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012) / Judgment on Originating Summonses
Outcome
OS136 enforced; OS188 dismissed with costs; OS141 dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Stay Pending Arbitration, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Defect Liability Period, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Construction Adjudication Arbitration Law Company Law Statutory Interpretation Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Stay Pending Arbitration Setting Aside Adjudication Decision +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charter Built Construction Sdn Bhd

Applicant (os136); Defendant (os141, Os188)

Amalan Setar (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent (os136); Plaintiff (os141, Os188)

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Enforcement and Challenges (originating Summonses Under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012) / Judgment on Originating Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudication claim was premature for purposes of CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide date of Final Certificate and validity of Certificate of Making Good Defects
  3. 3 Whether the Defects Liability Period was extended and effect on entitlement to claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the dates of the CMGD and FC and to decide the dispute; the Adjudicator's factual and legal findings are not to be disturbed under section 15 CIPAA absent nullity; no special or exceptional circumstances existed to grant a stay pending arbitration; accordingly the adjudication decision is enforceable and the challenges to it are dismissed.

Court Disposition

OS136 enforced; OS188 dismissed with costs; OS141 dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Grant Order in Terms for prayers 1, 2, 3 and 4 in enclosure 1 of OS 136 (enforcement of Adjudication Decision)
  • Order enforcement of Adjudicated Amount: RM578,514.52 (RM486,618.44 adjudicated sum; RM43,236.67 interest; RM48,659.41 adjudication costs)