Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjudication enforcement

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

BOILERMASTER SDN BHD TANDEX CHEMICALS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-712-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-712-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the defendant held a valid and enforceable CIPAA adjudication decision and enforcement order and the plaintiff had failed to pay, there was no sufficiently real and imminent actionable wrong to justify quia timet relief; consequently the defendant was entitled to pursue winding-up proceedings and the quia timet application was dismissed.
28 Jan 2026

PEMPETISYEN MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD THB POWER SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-187-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-187-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the adjudication decision created an enforceable entitlement and the respondent failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or to show immediate means of payment; without prejudice communications relied upon in the parties' affidavits were properly before the court or waived; therefore enforcement by winding up was appropriate and the winding-up petition is allowed, while the competing motion to appoint private liquidators is dismissed on the facts.
23 Oct 2025

IEC POWER ENGINEERING SDN BHD DANGA JED DEVELOPMENT MALAYSIA SDN BHD (dahulu dikenali sebagai Greenland Danga Bay Sdn Bhd)

Citation

JA-24C-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24C-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's s.30 application was dismissed because plaintiff failed to discharge the initial legal burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that there was a sum 'due or payable' by the defendant to CTMCC at the time the s.30 notice was served, therefore s.30(5) CIPAA 2012 was not satisfied and the direct payment remedy could not be ordered.
21 Aug 2025

CHOP LEE HUAT CERMIN & ALUMINIUM SDN BHD Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

KA-24C-1-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24C-1-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove GOM was the principal to OBC for s30 purposes, failed to satisfy section 30(5) that money was due or payable by the principal to the contractor (GOM produced IPC No.62 showing payments made), and failed to properly serve the Section 30 notice as required by the contract and statute; consequently the statutory prerequisites to invoke section 30 CIPAA were not met.
7 Jul 2025

MAJLIS BANDARAYA PULAU PINANG Sagamuda Civil Sdn Bhd

Citation

P-01(C)(W)-247-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

P-01(C)(W)-247-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred: the 2nd termination was valid because it was exercised under the parties' conditional reinstatement agreement which expressly allowed termination at any time; the CRA was not an EOT under the COC and did not set time at large; the respondent is estopped from treating the CRA as an EOT given its conduct and reapplication for EOTs; the respondent failed to dispute the Final Account within the contractual three‑month period so the Final Account is binding; consequently the AD is to be set aside and the employer’s claims (including LAD) are uph…
1 Jul 2025

BOND M&E SDN. BHD. GAME ON FUN PARK (SOUTHERN) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-214-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-214-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons (Enclosure 1 in OS 3) was defective for non-compliance with mandatory Rules of Court requirements (intitulement and improper combination of stay and setting aside applications), GOF failed to establish a breach of natural justice or clear error by the adjudicator on the merits, the stay threshold under s.16 CIPAA was not met, and therefore the Court dismissed OS 3 and granted enforcement of the adjudication decision in OS 214 under s.28 CIPAA.
2 Aug 2024

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD GLOBAL WALL(MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-162-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-162-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudication Decision dated 2.10.2023 was not a nullity: the Payment Claim complied with CIPAA, no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction was established, and the stay pending arbitration was unjustified; however the judge found RM8,046,404.58 had already been paid by Samsung JV and ordered that amount to be deducted/severed from enforcement. Consequently applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed with costs and the enforcement application was allowed in part with directions to release stakeholder funds accordingly.
26 Jul 2024

KINU SDN. BHD. Kerajaan Malaysia (Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia)

Citation

WA-24C-202-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-202-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although JKR was found to be the principal under s4 CIPAA, KINU failed to prove that money was due or payable by JKR to Nukima at the time of the written request as required by s30(5) CIPAA; absence of that foundational precondition meant s30 remedy could not be invoked, therefore the application for direct payment was dismissed.
24 Jun 2024

TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN BHD KL ECO CITY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-15-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-15-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found that at the time the valid s30 request was received by the defendant the only sum due or payable to the main contractor in respect of the plaintiff was the retention sum of RM998,653.66 which the defendant paid; subsequent Settlement Agreement and Final Certificate demonstrated the net payable position was RM87,916.92; therefore the defendant was not liable to pay the plaintiff the claimed balance of RM192,970.76 and the plaintiff's application was dismissed.
5 Jun 2024

Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn Bhd Global Wall (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(IM)(C)-859-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(C)-859-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the timing and circumstances surrounding the appellant's demand on the bank guarantee gave rise to a seriously arguable inference of unconscionability justifying an interim injunction restraining the call; an undertaking as to damages by the respondent was required; the fortification (security deposit) application was dismissed; appeals 857 and 858 were dismissed and appeal 859 was allowed in part to record the undertaking as to damages; costs were awarded.