ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD RAPS SOLUTION SDN BHD

ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD RAPS SOLUTION SDN BHD

The court held the adjudicator did not breach the second rule of natural justice (or any breach was immaterial) because parties had opportunity to be heard and the adjudicator acted within CIPAA powers to assess interest and set-offs; the stay under s 16(1)(b) CIPAA was refused because Itramas had not lawfully instituted arbitration by failing mandatory contractual dispute resolution and the court would not permit prejudice to RAPS' cashflow; enforcement under s 28 CIPAA was granted because the adjudication was in favour of RAPS, the adjudicated amount remained unpaid and no legal bar to enforcement existed.

Citation
BA-24C-20-05/2021 (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-20-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cipaa) / High Court Judgment on Three Originating Summonses; Enforcement Order Granted; Appeal Pending to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Setting Aside OS dismissed; Stay OS dismissed; Enforcement OS allowed; one set of costs to RAPS; ad interim stay of execution granted pending Court of Appeal application but frozen funds not to be used by Itramas
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Stay of Enforcement, Enforcement as Judgment, Natural Justice (procedural Fairness), Set Off, Garnishee/frozen Funds
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Law Statutory Adjudication (cipaa) Adjudication Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Stay of Enforcement +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAPS Solutions Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

Itramas Technology Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cipaa) / High Court Judgment on Three Originating Summonses; Enforcement Order Granted; Appeal Pending to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator breached rule of natural justice (second rule) by failing to consider set-off/defence regarding Rectification Cost and by determining Late Payment Interest unilaterally
  2. 2 Whether court may grant stay under s 16(1)(b) CIPAA where contractual mandatory dispute resolution steps were not complied with
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of adjudication decision should be allowed under s 28 CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the adjudicator did not breach the second rule of natural justice (or any breach was immaterial) because parties had opportunity to be heard and the adjudicator acted within CIPAA powers to assess interest and set-offs; the stay under s 16(1)(b) CIPAA was refused because Itramas had not lawfully instituted arbitration by failing mandatory contractual dispute resolution and the court would not permit prejudice to RAPS' cashflow; enforcement under s 28 CIPAA was granted because the adjudication was in favour of RAPS, the adjudicated amount remained unpaid and no legal bar to enforcement existed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside OS dismissed; Stay OS dismissed; Enforcement OS allowed; one set of costs to RAPS; ad interim stay of execution granted pending Court of Appeal application but frozen funds not to be used by Itramas

Orders

  • Setting Aside Originating Summons dismissed
  • Stay Originating Summons dismissed