PIHAK KETIGA 1) AIR KELANTAN SDN. BHD. 2) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BHD. PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN OPES ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 0900443-A) PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CDAH CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 596259-T)

PIHAK KETIGA 1) AIR KELANTAN SDN. BHD. 2) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BHD. PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN OPES ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 0900443-A) PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CDAH CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 596259-T)

The court refused to make the garnishee order nisi absolute because an adjudication decision under CIPAA is provisional and does not create a debt 'due' or 'accruing due' for garnishment under O 49 r 1(1) while setting aside/stay applications and enforcement proceedings under s 28 CIPAA remain pending; allowing garnishment would circumvent CIPAA and prejudice the garnishee; to the extent O 49 r 1(1) conflicts with CIPAA it is void under the Interpretation Acts.

Citation
BA-22C-48-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor: OPES ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.; Judgment Debtor: CDAH CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.; 1st Garnishee: AIR KELANTAN SDN. BHD.; 2nd Garnishee: MAYBANK ISLAMIC BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 October 2019
Case Number
BA-22C-48-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Garnishee/execution Arising From Default Judgment and CIPAA Adjudication / Application to Make Absolute Ex Parte Garnishee Order Nisi (opposed); Related Setting Aside and Stay Applications Pending in Kota Bahru High Court
Outcome
Application to make absolute garnishee order nisi against 1st garnishee dismissed; garnishee order nisi set aside.
Legal Topics
Garnishment, CIPAA Adjudication, Effect of Adjudication Decision, Conflict Between Statute and Subsidiary Legislation, Stay and Setting Aside
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Construction Law Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions Statutory Interpretation Garnishment CIPAA Adjudication Effect of Adjudication Decision Conflict Between Statute and Subsidiary Legislation +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OPES ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Judgment Creditor

CDAH CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

Judgment Debtor

AIR KELANTAN SDN. BHD.

1st Garnishee

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BHD.

2nd Garnishee

Procedural Posture

Garnishee/execution Arising From Default Judgment and CIPAA Adjudication / Application to Make Absolute Ex Parte Garnishee Order Nisi (opposed); Related Setting Aside and Stay Applications Pending in Kota Bahru High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjudication decision under CIPAA gives rise to a debt 'due' or 'accruing due' for the purpose of garnishment under O 49 r 1(1) Rules of Court
  2. 2 Whether a garnishee order can be made absolute to attach an adjudicated sum pending enforcement proceedings under s 28 CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether O 49 r 1(1) Rules of Court is inconsistent with CIPAA to the extent of permitting garnishment of provisional adjudicated sums

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to make the garnishee order nisi absolute because an adjudication decision under CIPAA is provisional and does not create a debt 'due' or 'accruing due' for garnishment under O 49 r 1(1) while setting aside/stay applications and enforcement proceedings under s 28 CIPAA remain pending; allowing garnishment would circumvent CIPAA and prejudice the garnishee; to the extent O 49 r 1(1) conflicts with CIPAA it is void under the Interpretation Acts.

Court Disposition

Application to make absolute garnishee order nisi against 1st garnishee dismissed; garnishee order nisi set aside.

Orders

  • Garnishee Order Nisi against Air Kelantan Sdn. Bhd. set aside
  • Costs to be paid by the Judgment Creditor to the 1st Garnishee