PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD

PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD

The Court held the rectified amounts were refinements of interim claims previously submitted and not new or premature claims; the Payment Claim met s.5 CIPAA and Mersing was an "unpaid party"; the adjudicator had jurisdiction and lawful powers under s.25 to review/revise certificates and decide matters notwithstanding non-certification; therefore there was no excess of jurisdiction and the appeals were dismissed.

Citation
W-02(C)(A)-100-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 August 2022
Case Number
W-02(C)(A)-100-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on S.15 CIPAA Challenge
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Payment Claim, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Set Aside Adjudication Decision, Interim/progress Claims, Rectified Claims, Certification Process
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA Payment Claim Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Set Aside Adjudication Decision Interim/progress Claims +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on S.15 CIPAA Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating rectified claims included in Payment Claim
  2. 2 Whether rectified amounts constituted new or premature claims outside CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether claimant was an "unpaid party" and respondent a "non-paying party" under s.4 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the rectified amounts were refinements of interim claims previously submitted and not new or premature claims; the Payment Claim met s.5 CIPAA and Mersing was an "unpaid party"; the adjudicator had jurisdiction and lawful powers under s.25 to review/revise certificates and decide matters notwithstanding non-certification; therefore there was no excess of jurisdiction and the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal No. W-02(C)(A)-98-01/2021 dismissed with costs of RM20,000.00 (subject to allocatur) payable by Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd
  • Appeal No. W-02(C)(A)-100-01/2021 dismissed; no order as to costs for Appeal 100