Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjudication under cipaa

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

Vistamore Sdn Bhd Geostrength Engineering Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-24C-46-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-46-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the adjudicator decided the precise matters referred (non‑payment of Certificates 28–32, Progress Claim 32 and retention), and that references to parties' conduct and project practice were permissible evaluative tools within the adjudicator's remit rather than new causes of action; there was no material denial of natural justice and no excess of jurisdiction, thus the application to set aside failed and the adjudication decision is enforceable under s28 CIPAA.
10 Feb 2026

VICTORY BUILDERS SDN BHD INFINITE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-25-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-25-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held Infinite's complaints were substantively merits challenges rather than valid s15 grounds: the adjudicator lawfully exercised powers under s12/s25 to request and consider clarification (CBD 3) without demonstrable prejudice to Infinite; Term 2 was raised by Infinite and its interpretation was within the adjudicator's evaluative jurisdiction not an excess of jurisdiction; no material denial of natural justice or jurisdictional overreach was established; accordingly OS20 to set aside the AD was dismissed and OS25 to enforce the AD was allowed.
27 Jan 2026

AGV OFFSHORE SDN BHD BETTER POWER (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-59-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-59-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Better Power failed to establish any jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice under s.15 CIPAA: the misnaming was a non-fatal misdescription where parties' identities were clear; the adjudicator acted within remit in evaluating evidence and adopting a methodology to assess quantum (an error in valuation is a merits issue, not jurisdictional); the adjudicator provided adequate reasons per s.12(4); there was no denial of procedural fairness in refusing a rejoinder; consequently the AD stood and was enforceable under s.28 CIPAA as the statutory conditions were satisfied.
21 Nov 2025

PEMPETISYEN GEO HILL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PESAT BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) LEONG POH HONG 2. ) JUN YIN CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) GEO METAL SDN BHD 4. ) Rangkai Bintang (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the winding up petition was founded on a statutory demand based on CIPAA adjudication decisions which are treated as indisputable per binding authority, the petitioner was entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding up order and the application for stay was properly dismissed.
18 Sept 2025

SIGNATURE CABINET SDN BHD 1. ) LIM KENG HENG 2. ) MOHAMED IZHAM BIN HAMZAH 3. ) ALIGAN DESIGN SDN BHD 4. ) ALIGAN HOLDINGS SDN BHD 5. ) TULUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 6. ) JAYA PRAKASH A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

WA-22NCvC-498-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-498-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The striking out application was dismissed because on the face of the Amended SOC it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff had no reasonable cause of action, nor that the claim was scandalous, frivolous or an abuse of process; allegations of integrated control, ownership and alleged fraudulent conduct required trial evidence and could not be resolved summarily under Order 18 r19(1).
20 Sept 2024

HALUAN PRISMA SDN BHD INTERIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-10-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-10-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held HP's section 15 CIPAA application to set aside the Adjudication Decision was without merit because the Adjudicator had considered the relevant contractual clauses and parties' responses, did not breach natural justice, and acted within the procedural powers conferred by section 25 and jurisdiction under section 27; accordingly OS10 dismissed with costs and OS27 enforcing the Adjudication Decision was allowed, granting orders in terms including payment of the adjudicated sum with interest and costs.
26 Jul 2024

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

Citation

WA-24C-39-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-39-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held there was no breach of natural justice and no clear and unequivocal error because the CNC was never produced to the adjudicator despite opportunities to do so; therefore the adjudicator was entitled to decide on the available evidence. Consequently the setting aside application and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforceable and granted in terms under s28 CIPAA.
11 Dec 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-160-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-160-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s.37 CIPAA permits adjudication even where arbitration has been commenced; the Payment Claim (read with its covering letter) satisfied s.5(2) CIPAA; the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction nor deny natural justice in a manner warranting setting aside under s.15; therefore OS160 was dismissed with costs, OS162 (enforcement under s.28 CIPAA) was granted and OS161 (stay) was dismissed.
26 Oct 2023

TSR BINA SDN BHD SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-1352-07/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-1352-07/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court of Appeal held the High Court erred by setting aside the adjudication decision for breach of natural justice; the adjudicator properly exercised discretion under s25 to refuse further rejoinder, the matters alleged to be 'new' were not new and were within the respondent's knowledge or already in the adjudication response, the refusal did not amount to a material breach of natural justice, and the High Court impermissibly reviewed the merits rather than limiting its inquiry to procedural fairness under s15 CIPAA; appeals allowed and High Court decisions set aside.
31 Jul 2023

KOH LEK CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION SDN. BHD. SMARTECH INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-64-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-64-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that on the affidavit record there exist genuine triable factual disputes as to termination, dates for release of the retention sum and the validity/effect of the CPC; those disputes affect when any cause of action accrued and whether limitation applies; it is improper to determine the declaratory relief or grant an injunction on affidavit evidence alone; accordingly declarations that the disputes or the Notice of Adjudication are time barred and an injunction restraining the adjudication were refused and the originating summons prayers were dismissed with costs to the defendan…