Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjudication

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2025

BMG GLOBAL SDN BHD JUANG-ANTARA BINA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22C-24-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-24-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's claim was struck out for failure to appear and for not appointing replacement solicitors or seeking adjournment; under Order 35 r.1(2) the court lawfully proceeded to hear the Defendant's counterclaim in the Plaintiff's absence and allowed the counterclaim in the reduced sum of RM1,146,869.87 with 5% simple interest from the date of judgment and costs of RM20,000.00 (subject to allocatur).
12 Sept 2024

1. ) LUXOR HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) LUXOR YRM SDN BHD SQA BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(C)(A)-2395-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(A)-2395-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

A right to refer a question of law under s42 is contingent on the existence/publication of an arbitral award and therefore only questions of law arising from awards published before the repeal date (8 May 2018) could be referred to the High Court under s42; notices of arbitration issued before repeal do not preserve a s42 referral right for awards published after repeal, so the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain s42 referrals for such awards.
26 Jul 2024

AGILE PJD DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-37-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-37-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the setting aside application failed because the CNC was never before the Adjudicator and Agile had opportunities to produce it; no breach of natural justice or clear and unequivocal error was shown; the stay was refused because CCYR is financially secure and CIPAA’s scheme favors speedy recovery; accordingly enforcement of the Adjudication Decision was granted.
26 Jul 2024

CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD AGILE PJD DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-20-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-20-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that there was no breach of natural justice or clear and unequivocal error because the CNC was never produced to the Adjudicator despite opportunities to do so; therefore the Adjudicator could legitimately decide on the evidence before him. Further, the Court refused a stay pending arbitration because CCYR was financially secure and CIPAA's purpose of speedy recovery weighed against a stay. Consequently the Adjudication Decision was enforceable and the enforcement order was granted.
5 Jul 2024

GAMMERLITE SDN BHD 1. ) JAMBATAN KEDUA SDN BHD 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-22-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-22-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The performance bond was an on‑demand and unconditional guarantee payable on first written demand; the Plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unconscionability or other exceptional grounds to restrain payment; therefore the demand was lawful and the injunction and originating summons were dismissed with costs.
22 Mar 2024

DIAN MAKMUR SDN BHD ASOMA TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-196-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-196-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor act in excess of jurisdiction because the Notice of Adjudication was properly served at the plaintiff's registered address and the plaintiff had appointed a representative before the adjudicator was appointed; therefore the adjudicator's decision stands and the challenge is dismissed.
28 Feb 2024

RZH SETIA JAYA SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION) SIME DARBY ENERGY SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C(ARB)-8-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24C(ARB)-8-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SDES failed to establish that the Award conflicted with Malaysia's public policy or that there was a breach of natural justice that materially affected the outcome; the arbitrator's interpretation — that no implied right to apply for EOT exists absent an express term and related findings on delays, LAD, VO and evidence evaluation — fell within her jurisdiction and was supported by the contract and evidence; accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and the enforcement application was allowed.
8 Sept 2023

KEY PROJECT RESOURCES CHONG CHOOK YEW SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-24-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-24-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that parts of an adjudication decision can be set aside; the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction in extending time because section 25(p) CIPAA permits extension even after expiry; the adjudicator considered the EOT, delay and vacant possession issues sufficiently and any alleged errors on merits do not constitute grounds under section 15; assessment of evidentiary weight for the penultimate claim was within the adjudicator's domain; accordingly the plaintiff's application to set aside (Enclosure 1) was dismissed with costs.
24 Aug 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-184-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-184-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found MRCB's Payment Claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA and the adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction and s25 powers (including reliance on the parties' own Recommended Valuation); there was no breach of natural justice that justified setting aside the decision; no clear and unequivocal errors were shown to warrant a stay; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforced.
11 Apr 2023

ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-157-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-157-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the Payment Claim provided sufficient basic information under s 5(2) CIPAA and the adjudicator had competency jurisdiction to decide the disputed items; the adjudication decision was not rendered void by the withholding/payment deposit procedure and delivery of the AD on 1.8.2022 was within the statutory framework; the adjudicator's appointment was valid despite unsigned request and s 26 treated procedural irregularity as not invalidating jurisdiction; there was no breach of natural justice. Therefore the Setting Aside and Stay Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Applicat…