SSANGYONG ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. OXLEY RISING SDN BHD

SSANGYONG ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. OXLEY RISING SDN BHD

The Adjudicator's decision was set aside because he relied materially and decisively on a voluminous expert report produced in the claimant's Adjudication Reply without affording the respondent an opportunity to respond; that denial of audi alteram partem constituted a breach of natural justice under s15(b) CIPAA and was material to the adjudication's findings (notably entitlement to additional EOT), thus warranting setting aside and dismissal of enforcement.

Citation
WA-24C-97-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.; Respondent/plaintiff: Oxley Rising Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 November 2022
Case Number
WA-24C-97-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA 2012 (setting Aside Adjudication Decision and Enforcement) / High Court Judgment on Setting Aside and Enforcement Applications
Outcome
Setting Aside Application allowed; Adjudication Decision set aside; Enforcement Application dismissed; Stay Application struck out (no order as to costs previously)
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Denial of Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem), Extension of Time (eot), Expert Evidence in Adjudication, Stay of Adjudication Decision, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Civil Procedure Contract Law Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Denial of Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem) Extension of Time (eot) Expert Evidence in Adjudication +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.

Applicant/defendant

Oxley Rising Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA 2012 (setting Aside Adjudication Decision and Enforcement) / High Court Judgment on Setting Aside and Enforcement Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator denied natural justice by relying on an expert report included in the claimant's adjudication reply without giving the respondent opportunity to respond
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator lacked independence or impartiality
  3. 3 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction in deciding termination validity and counterclaims

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator's decision was set aside because he relied materially and decisively on a voluminous expert report produced in the claimant's Adjudication Reply without affording the respondent an opportunity to respond; that denial of audi alteram partem constituted a breach of natural justice under s15(b) CIPAA and was material to the adjudication's findings (notably entitlement to additional EOT), thus warranting setting aside and dismissal of enforcement.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application allowed; Adjudication Decision set aside; Enforcement Application dismissed; Stay Application struck out (no order as to costs previously)

Orders

  • Adjudication decision set aside pursuant to s15(b) CIPAA (denial of natural justice)
  • Enforcement application dismissed