PINNACLE SURPREME SDN BHD DSG PROJECTS MALAYSIA SDN BHD

PINNACLE SURPREME SDN BHD DSG PROJECTS MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Pinnacle's challenges were essentially complaints about the merits and factual evaluation by the adjudicator and thus not grounds under s.15 CIPAA; the adjudicator did not deny procedural fairness because the contested documentary evidence was before her and Pinnacle had opportunity to respond; accordingly the setting aside application fails and the adjudication decision is enforceable under s.28 CIPAA.

Citation
wa-24c-180-09/2019 dan wa-24c-186-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in OS 1 and Defendant in OS 2: Pinnacle Supreme Sdn Bhd; Defendant in OS 1 and Plaintiff in OS 2: DSG Projects Malaysia Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 November 2020
Case Number
wa-24c-180-09/2019 dan wa-24c-186-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA 2012 (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / High Court Grounds of Decision on Cross Applications; Appeal Pending
Outcome
OS 1 dismissed; OS 2 allowed; adjudication decision enforced; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Adjudicator Jurisdiction
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Under CIPAA Civil Procedure Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Natural Justice Adjudicator Jurisdiction

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pinnacle Supreme Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in OS 1 and Defendant in OS 2

DSG Projects Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Defendant in OS 1 and Plaintiff in OS 2

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA 2012 (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / High Court Grounds of Decision on Cross Applications; Appeal Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by awarding retention sum
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator denied natural justice by relying on unstamped M&E consultant documents for variation claims
  3. 3 Whether court may review merits of adjudicator's factual findings

Ratio Decidendi

Pinnacle's challenges were essentially complaints about the merits and factual evaluation by the adjudicator and thus not grounds under s.15 CIPAA; the adjudicator did not deny procedural fairness because the contested documentary evidence was before her and Pinnacle had opportunity to respond; accordingly the setting aside application fails and the adjudication decision is enforceable under s.28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

OS 1 dismissed; OS 2 allowed; adjudication decision enforced; costs awarded.

Orders

  • OS 1 dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 subject to 4% allocator
  • OS 2 allowed and adjudication decision enforced as judgment under s.28 CIPAA