TECHNYGROUP HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD SMART GLOVE INDUSTRIES ( MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

TECHNYGROUP HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD SMART GLOVE INDUSTRIES ( MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

The High Court found SGI failed to prove illegality or denial of natural justice and that the Adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction; Clause 10 payment terms applied, Clause 25.4(d) could not defeat payments (and was void as a conditional payment), and enforcement under s28 was appropriate because the AD was not set aside or stayed and the adjudicated sum remained unpaid. Accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-83-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 52 03/2023); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 83 05/2023): SMART GLOVE INDUSTRIES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD; Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 52 03/2023); Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 83 05/2023): TECHNYGROUP HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-83-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cipaa Adjudication/enforcement/setting Aside/stay) / High Court Judgment (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Stay Pending Arbitration, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice, Illegality of Works (planning Permission), Payment Claims and Terms
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Law Arbitration Law Administrative/planning Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision +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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SMART GLOVE INDUSTRIES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 52 03/2023); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 83 05/2023)

TECHNYGROUP HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD

Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 52 03/2023); Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 83 05/2023)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cipaa Adjudication/enforcement/setting Aside/stay) / High Court Judgment (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication decision (AD) should be set aside for illegality (lack of planning permission)
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding unpleaded matters
  3. 3 Whether there was denial of natural justice in the adjudication process

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found SGI failed to prove illegality or denial of natural justice and that the Adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction; Clause 10 payment terms applied, Clause 25.4(d) could not defeat payments (and was void as a conditional payment), and enforcement under s28 was appropriate because the AD was not set aside or stayed and the adjudicated sum remained unpaid. Accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs RM12000.00 (subject to allocator)
  • Enforcement Application allowed; order to enforce adjudication decision as judgment; costs RM3000.00 (subject to allocator)