LDE PROJECT SDN BHD KAY PRIDE SDN BHD

LDE PROJECT SDN BHD KAY PRIDE SDN BHD

Defendant failed to serve the mandatory Section 30(2) notice; the Defendant also failed to discharge its evidential burden to show no monies were due or payable to the main contractor at the time of the Plaintiff's written request. Therefore Section 30(3) is engaged and the Defendant is obliged to pay the adjudicated amount including interest and adjudication costs as awarded in the Adjudication Decision.

Citation
BA-24C-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: LDE PROJECT SDN BHD; Defendant (employer): KAY PRIDE SDN BHD; Main Contractor: TIARA CONTOURS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 May 2024
Case Number
BA-24C-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (section 30 CIPAA 2012) / Judgment
Outcome
Originating Summons allowed; Defendant ordered to comply with Section 30(3) CIPAA and pay the adjudicated amount including interest and adjudication costs as awarded in the Adjudication Decision.
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012 Section 30, Adjudication Decision Enforcement, Direct Payment, Due or Payable, Set Off, Retention, Liquidated Damages, Interest and Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA 2012 Section 30 Adjudication Decision Enforcement Direct Payment Due or Payable +4 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LDE PROJECT SDN BHD

Plaintiff

KAY PRIDE SDN BHD

Defendant (employer)

TIARA CONTOURS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Main Contractor

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (section 30 CIPAA 2012) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to serve a Section 30(2) CIPAA notice is fatal to the Defendant's defence
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff discharged the legal burden to invoke Section 30 CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant discharged the evidential burden to prove no monies were due or payable to the main contractor

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to serve the mandatory Section 30(2) notice; the Defendant also failed to discharge its evidential burden to show no monies were due or payable to the main contractor at the time of the Plaintiff's written request. Therefore Section 30(3) is engaged and the Defendant is obliged to pay the adjudicated amount including interest and adjudication costs as awarded in the Adjudication Decision.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons allowed; Defendant ordered to comply with Section 30(3) CIPAA and pay the adjudicated amount including interest and adjudication costs as awarded in the Adjudication Decision.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay to Plaintiff the adjudicated sum of RM772,837.75 pursuant to the Adjudication Decision and Section 30(3) CIPAA 2012
  • Defendant to pay further interest at 5% per annum on the adjudicated principal of RM618,642.04 and the adjudication costs of RM35,213.06 from 30.11.2023 until full and final settlement, as set out in the Adjudication Decision