TRT ENGINEERING (M) SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 684176-H) HANSOL KNM GREENTECH SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 1135364-X)

TRT ENGINEERING (M) SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 684176-H) HANSOL KNM GREENTECH SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 1135364-X)

Hansol's application to set aside and to stay the adjudication decision was dismissed; TRT's application to enforce the adjudication decision was allowed and the AD enforced as a judgment except that post-adjudication interest is to run from 3.1.2019; the adjudicator acted within CIPAA powers (including awarding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-24C(ARB)-2-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: TRT Engineering (M) Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant: Hansol KNM Greentech Sdn. Bhd.
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 November 2019
Case Number
BA-24C(ARB)-2-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA (enforcement and Setting Aside) / Heard Together; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Hansol's originating summons and enclosure 3 dismissed; TRT's originating summons allowed in part and adjudication decision enforced as judgment with interest from 3.1.2019; costs to TRT
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Adjudicator Jurisdiction, Costs Allocation, Remittance for Re Adjudication, Stay of Adjudication Decision, Interest on Adjudicated Sum
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Civil Procedure Contract Law Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Natural Justice Adjudicator Jurisdiction +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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TRT Engineering (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

Hansol KNM Greentech Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA (enforcement and Setting Aside) / Heard Together; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a setting aside originating summons may be filed after an enforcement originating summons under O 69A r 3(4) Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator had power under s25(o) CIPAA to award financing costs
  3. 3 Whether adjudicator had discretion under s18(1) CIPAA to award entire adjudication fees, expenses and taxes to successful party

Ratio Decidendi

Hansol's application to set aside and to stay the adjudication decision was dismissed; TRT's application to enforce the adjudication decision was allowed and the AD enforced as a judgment except that post-adjudication interest is to run from 3.1.2019; the adjudicator acted within CIPAA powers (including awarding financing costs and fees) and the court will not remit the AD for re-adjudication; corrections under s12(7) are discretionary and not reviewable absent s15 grounds.

Court Disposition

Hansol's originating summons and enclosure 3 dismissed; TRT's originating summons allowed in part and adjudication decision enforced as judgment with interest from 3.1.2019; costs to TRT

Orders

  • Hansol's OS (BA-24NCvC-388-03/2019) dismissed
  • Application in enclosure 3 to stay enforcement dismissed