TERA VA SDN. BHD. AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD.

TERA VA SDN. BHD. AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD.

The Court dismissed both appeals: TVA failed to prove fraud or denial of natural justice under s15 CIPAA so the adjudication decision stands; ABI was entitled to raise a cross-claim in response but a cross-claim may only reduce or zeroise the claimant's claim and cannot exceed it to make the respondent a substantive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
B-02(C)(A)-1948-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Tera Va Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent: Ayam Bintang Istimewa Sdn. Bhd.
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 August 2024
Case Number
B-02(C)(A)-1948-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (cipaa Enforcement and Setting Aside) / Court of Appeal Judgment (24 09 2024)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012, Setting Aside Adjudication, Enforcement of Adjudication, Cross Claim, Jurisdiction, Fraud, Natural Justice, Set Off
Construction Law Adjudication Contract Law Civil Procedure CIPAA 2012 Setting Aside Adjudication Enforcement of Adjudication Cross Claim +4 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Tera Va Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant

Ayam Bintang Istimewa Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (cipaa Enforcement and Setting Aside) / Court of Appeal Judgment (24 09 2024)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent may file a cross-claim in adjudication proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a cross-claim may exceed the claimant's claim and make respondent the substantive claimant
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication decision was improperly procured by fraud (s15(a) CIPAA)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed both appeals: TVA failed to prove fraud or denial of natural justice under s15 CIPAA so the adjudication decision stands; ABI was entitled to raise a cross-claim in response but a cross-claim may only reduce or zeroise the claimant's claim and cannot exceed it to make the respondent a substantive claimant; although the adjudicator awarded a net sum in favour of the respondent exceeding the claimant's claim (which would be excess of jurisdiction), that ground was not pleaded and therefore the appeals were dismissed with costs to ABI.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal B-02(C)(A)-1949-11/2023 (setting aside) dismissed
  • Appeal B-02(C)(A)-1948-11/2023 (enforcement) dismissed