ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

The court refused to set aside the adjudication decision because ASM's complaints were primarily merits-based or non-material procedural issues, the adjudicator acted within the statutory jurisdiction under CIPAA when addressing the pleaded issues (including valuation and causation of delay), there was no material denial of natural justice, and EP satisfied statutory requirements for enforcement; accordingly OS1 dismissed and OS2 allowed and the adjudication award enforced.

Citation
WA-24C-253-11/2019 & WA-24C-200-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in OS 1; Defendant in OS 2: ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd; Defendant in OS 1; Plaintiff in OS 2: Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 October 2020
Case Number
WA-24C-253-11/2019 & WA-24C-200-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA 2012 (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Hearing and Final Judgment (cross Applications)
Outcome
OS 1 dismissed; OS 2 allowed; adjudication decision enforced as High Court judgment
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Denial of Natural Justice, Excess of Jurisdiction, Liquidated and Ascertained Damages, Extension of Time, Interim Payment Certificates, Valuation by Quantity Surveyor
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Arbitration and Adjudication Law Administrative Law (natural Justice) Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Denial of Natural Justice +5 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in OS 1; Defendant in OS 2

Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd

Defendant in OS 1; Plaintiff in OS 2

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA 2012 (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Hearing and Final Judgment (cross Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudication decision should be set aside for denial of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator improperly relied on matters not pleaded (qualifications of S.O.)

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to set aside the adjudication decision because ASM's complaints were primarily merits-based or non-material procedural issues, the adjudicator acted within the statutory jurisdiction under CIPAA when addressing the pleaded issues (including valuation and causation of delay), there was no material denial of natural justice, and EP satisfied statutory requirements for enforcement; accordingly OS1 dismissed and OS2 allowed and the adjudication award enforced.

Court Disposition

OS 1 dismissed; OS 2 allowed; adjudication decision enforced as High Court judgment

Orders

  • OS 1 dismissed with costs of RM6000.00 subject to the standard allocator
  • OS 2 allowed and the adjudication decision of RM6,039,324.99 (with interest and costs as awarded in the adjudication) is enforced as a judgment of the High Court; costs RM6000.00 subject to the standard allocator