Granstep Development Sdn Bhd Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd

Granstep Development Sdn Bhd Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd

The Court affirmed the High Court: adjudication did not commence without appointment of an adjudicator so the first notice/payment claim did not create a subsisting adjudication requiring formal withdrawal under s17; AIAC's ARP registration is not a statutory precondition of jurisdiction; the 2nd payment claim could validly supersede the 1st; there was no breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction by the Adjudicator; therefore the AD stood, enforcement was allowed and applications to set aside and to stay enforcement were dismissed.

Citation
B-02(C)(A)-1598-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Granstep Development Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 October 2022
Case Number
B-02(C)(A)-1598-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (cipaa Adjudication) / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposition)
Outcome
All three appeals dismissed and High Court decisions affirmed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Award, Setting Aside Adjudication Award, Stay of Enforcement Pending Arbitration, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Arbitration Civil Procedure Insolvency (ancillary) Enforcement of Adjudication Award Setting Aside Adjudication Award Stay of Enforcement Pending Arbitration +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Granstep Development Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (cipaa Adjudication) / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication proceedings commenced for first PC absent appointment of an adjudicator
  2. 2 Whether claimant was required to withdraw purported first adjudication under s17 CIPAA before commencing a second adjudication
  3. 3 Whether AIAC Adjudication Rules/ARP registration was a precondition of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the High Court: adjudication did not commence without appointment of an adjudicator so the first notice/payment claim did not create a subsisting adjudication requiring formal withdrawal under s17; AIAC's ARP registration is not a statutory precondition of jurisdiction; the 2nd payment claim could validly supersede the 1st; there was no breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction by the Adjudicator; therefore the AD stood, enforcement was allowed and applications to set aside and to stay enforcement were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All three appeals dismissed and High Court decisions affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals B-02(C)(A)-1597-08/2021, B-02(C)(A)-1598-08/2021 and B-02(C)(A)-1599-08/2021 dismissed
  • High Court orders dated 06.08.2021 affirmed