NAZA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 911917-T) SSL DEV SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 101749-H)

NAZA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 911917-T) SSL DEV SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 101749-H)

The adjudication decision was set aside because the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding a 4th pre-adjudication interest sum (RM392,649.71) which was not claimed in the payment claim or adjudication claim, resulting in potential unjust enrichment; errors of merit, evidentiary weighing or disputed findings do not justify setting aside under s15, and in a pure setting aside application the court lacks power under s15 to vary or sever part of an adjudication decision (the court may only vary/sever when making an enforcement order under s28).

Citation
BA-24C-60-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PLAINTIFF: NAZA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.; DEFENDANT: SSL DEV SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 October 2019
Case Number
BA-24C-60-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (originating Summons) / Judgment
Outcome
Originating Summons allowed; adjudication decision set aside in full; costs to the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Interest Awards, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Civil Procedure Adjudication Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Natural Justice Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Interest Awards +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 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NAZA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

PLAINTIFF

SSL DEV SDN. BHD.

DEFENDANT

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (originating Summons) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can set aside the adjudication decision under s15 CIPAA or O 92 r 4 RC or inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted independently or impartially (s15(c) CIPAA)
  3. 3 Whether there was denial of natural justice (s15(b) CIPAA)

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudication decision was set aside because the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding a 4th pre-adjudication interest sum (RM392,649.71) which was not claimed in the payment claim or adjudication claim, resulting in potential unjust enrichment; errors of merit, evidentiary weighing or disputed findings do not justify setting aside under s15, and in a pure setting aside application the court lacks power under s15 to vary or sever part of an adjudication decision (the court may only vary/sever when making an enforcement order under s28).

Court Disposition

Originating Summons allowed; adjudication decision set aside in full; costs to the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Adjudication decision set aside in its entirety
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff