Ramesh a/l Kanapathy and Lim Tze Ping (chambering student) (Messrs Chellam Wong] for the Plaintiff Cedric Nigel Miranda [Messrs Cedric Miranda & Co.] for the Defendant

Ramesh a/l Kanapathy and Lim Tze Ping (chambering student) (Messrs Chellam Wong] for the Plaintiff Cedric Nigel Miranda [Messrs Cedric Miranda & Co.] for the Defendant

The High Court held that the adjudication decision was delivered within the statutory 45 working days, the adjudicator met competency requirements and did not breach natural justice in refusing oral hearings or in his reasoning, the reasons in the decision were adequate, fresh evidence was unjustified as it was available during adjudication, and therefore the application to set aside the adjudication decision failed and enforcement under Section 28 CIPAA was granted.

Citation
SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-204-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Claimant / Plaintiff: Yuli Construction Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent / Defendant: I-Travis Construction Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 March 2023
Case Number
SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-204-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Enforcement and Challenge to Adjudication Decision / High Court Judgment on Originating Summonses (enforcement and to Set Aside Adjudication)
Outcome
Application to set aside adjudication dismissed; enforcement of adjudication decision granted
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under Section 28 CIPAA, Setting Aside Adjudication Under Section 15 CIPAA, Timing (45 Working Days) Under Section 12 CIPAA, Adjudicator Competency and Appointment, Natural Justice / Right to Hearing, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Effect of Winding Up Proceedings
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication / Alternative Dispute Resolution Company Law (winding Up) Administrative Law/procedural Law Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under Section 28 CIPAA Setting Aside Adjudication Under Section 15 CIPAA Timing (45 Working Days) Under Section 12 CIPAA Adjudicator Competency and Appointment +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuli Construction Sdn. Bhd.

Claimant / Plaintiff

I-Travis Construction Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Enforcement and Challenge to Adjudication Decision / High Court Judgment on Originating Summonses (enforcement and to Set Aside Adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudication decision was delivered within the 45 working days prescribed by Section 12 CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator met competency criteria and acted within jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator breached natural justice by refusing oral hearings and making alleged biased findings

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the adjudication decision was delivered within the statutory 45 working days, the adjudicator met competency requirements and did not breach natural justice in refusing oral hearings or in his reasoning, the reasons in the decision were adequate, fresh evidence was unjustified as it was available during adjudication, and therefore the application to set aside the adjudication decision failed and enforcement under Section 28 CIPAA was granted.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside adjudication dismissed; enforcement of adjudication decision granted

Orders

  • Originating Summons No. WA-24C-226-12/2022 (to set aside AD) dismissed with costs
  • Originating Summons No. WA-24C-204-10/2022 (stay application) dismissed with costs as academic