MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD

MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD

The Court of Appeal held that the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA by allowing standalone late payment interest claims relating to Certificates 1-46 where the principal amounts had already been paid because such claims were not "payment" within s4 CIPAA and therefore outside the adjudicator's core jurisdiction; accordingly the setting aside application was allowed in part, the adjudication award was varied to deduct RM1,610,732.87 (with refund and interest), and the enforcement order was varied correspondingly while upholding the remainder of the adjudication decision.

Citation
B-02(C)(A)-2185-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Setiakon Builders Sdn Bhd
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 September 2025
Case Number
B-02(C)(A)-2185-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Construction Appeal Under CIPAA 2012 / Court of Appeal Judgment (final)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Adjudication decision set aside in part for late payment interest claims outside CIPAA jurisdiction; remainder of adjudication decision upheld and enforcement varied accordingly.
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012, Late Payment Interest, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA 2012 Late Payment Interest Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Enforcement of Adjudication Decision +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Setiakon Builders Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Construction Appeal Under CIPAA 2012 / Court of Appeal Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by awarding late payment interest for progress certificates where principal amounts had already been paid
  2. 2 Whether late payment interest constitutes a "payment" under section 4 CIPAA 2012 and thus is adjudicable
  3. 3 Whether there was a denial of natural justice in the adjudication proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA by allowing standalone late payment interest claims relating to Certificates 1-46 where the principal amounts had already been paid because such claims were not "payment" within s4 CIPAA and therefore outside the adjudicator's core jurisdiction; accordingly the setting aside application was allowed in part, the adjudication award was varied to deduct RM1,610,732.87 (with refund and interest), and the enforcement order was varied correspondingly while upholding the remainder of the adjudication decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Adjudication decision set aside in part for late payment interest claims outside CIPAA jurisdiction; remainder of adjudication decision upheld and enforcement varied accordingly.

Orders

  • Allow Appeal No. B-02(C)(A)-2178-12/2024 in part and set aside the adjudication decision insofar as it awarded late payment interest relating to Certificates No.1-46 that were not previously the subject of a payment claim under CIPAA
  • Deduct RM1,610,732.87 from the adjudicated sum and order Setiakon to refund RM1,610,732.87 to Mayfair together with interest of RM95,176.42