ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD RAPS SOLUTION SDN BHD

ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD RAPS SOLUTION SDN BHD

The High Court held the adjudicator did not breach the second rule of natural justice (and even if a breach occurred it was not material or likely to affect the outcome), the adjudicator acted within CIPAA powers in computing interest, Itramas failed to discharge the burden to obtain a stay and had not lawfully instituted arbitration in breach of mandatory contractual dispute resolution, and consequently enforcement under s28 CIPAA was allowed while the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed.

Citation
BA-24C-60-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: RAPS Solutions Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant: Itramas Technology Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 January 2022
Case Number
BA-24C-60-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Under Cipaa) / High Court Judgment (decision on Three Originating Summonses)
Outcome
Setting Aside OS dismissed; Stay OS dismissed; Enforcement OS allowed; Ad interim stay of execution granted pending Court of Appeal but frozen garnisheed funds not permitted for respondent's use; costs to RAPS
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Stay of Enforcement Pending Arbitration, Enforcement of Adjudication as Judgment, Natural Justice (second Rule), Calculation of Interest, Garnishee Orders
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Equitable Set Off Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Stay of Enforcement Pending Arbitration +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAPS Solutions Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

Itramas Technology Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Under Cipaa) / High Court Judgment (decision on Three Originating Summonses)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator breached the second rule of natural justice by failing to consider set-off for rectification costs and by unilaterally computing late payment interest
  2. 2 Whether court may stay enforcement under s16(1)(b) CIPAA where contractual dispute resolution steps were not complied with prior to arbitration
  3. 3 Whether enforcement under s28 CIPAA should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the adjudicator did not breach the second rule of natural justice (and even if a breach occurred it was not material or likely to affect the outcome), the adjudicator acted within CIPAA powers in computing interest, Itramas failed to discharge the burden to obtain a stay and had not lawfully instituted arbitration in breach of mandatory contractual dispute resolution, and consequently enforcement under s28 CIPAA was allowed while the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside OS dismissed; Stay OS dismissed; Enforcement OS allowed; Ad interim stay of execution granted pending Court of Appeal but frozen garnisheed funds not permitted for respondent's use; costs to RAPS

Orders

  • Setting Aside Originating Summons dismissed
  • Stay Originating Summons dismissed