PCOM PACIFIC APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD & SATU LAGI

PCOM PACIFIC APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD & SATU LAGI

Because the First Defendant failed to issue the mandatory s.30(2) notice and produced an unsupported reconciliation statement which did not discharge its burden under s.30(5), the First Defendant was liable to make direct payment under s.30(3) of CIPAA of the adjudicated amount to the Plaintiff.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-24C-164-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: PCOM PACIFIC SDN BHD; First Defendant: APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD; Second Defendant: PRESTIGEXCEL ENGINEERING SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 January 2020
Case Number
WA-24C-164-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Direct Payment Application / Originating Summons Heard and Judgment (direct Payment Ordered)
Outcome
Application allowed against First Defendant; no order for costs against Second Defendant
Legal Topics
Direct Payment Remedy S.30 CIPAA, Adjudication Enforcement, Burden of Proof Under S.30(5), Reconciliation of Accounts and Evidential Weight, Statutory Notice Requirements
Construction Law Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Contract Law Civil Procedure Direct Payment Remedy S.30 CIPAA Adjudication Enforcement Burden of Proof Under S.30(5) Reconciliation of Accounts and Evidential Weight +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PCOM PACIFIC SDN BHD

Plaintiff

APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD

First Defendant

PRESTIGEXCEL ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Direct Payment Application / Originating Summons Heard and Judgment (direct Payment Ordered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether principal is obliged to make direct payment where contractor failed to comply with s.30(2)
  2. 2 Whether principal discharged burden under s.30(5) to show no monies were due or payable to contractor at time of request
  3. 3 Whether reconciliation statement exhibited by principal has sufficient evidential value

Ratio Decidendi

Because the First Defendant failed to issue the mandatory s.30(2) notice and produced an unsupported reconciliation statement which did not discharge its burden under s.30(5), the First Defendant was liable to make direct payment under s.30(3) of CIPAA of the adjudicated amount to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application allowed against First Defendant; no order for costs against Second Defendant

Orders

  • First Defendant to pay Plaintiff RM6,521,818.39 with interest at 5% per annum from 6 December 2018 until full realization
  • First Defendant to pay adjudication costs and fees of RM111,250.00 within 7 days from 17 December 2019