Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cipaa

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

GEOSTRENGTH ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. VISTAMORE SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24C-44-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-44-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that Geostrength failed to establish either denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction under s.15 CIPAA: the adjudicator decided the matters referred (non-payment of Certificates 28–32, Progress Claim 32 and retention) and her reliance on parties' conduct and practice was part of permissible evaluative reasoning within jurisdiction; any error would be on the merits and not a ground to set aside. Consequently the adjudication decision remained valid and, as the award remained unpaid, enforcement under s.28 CIPAA was granted.
4 Jul 2025

Perbadanan Putrajaya DAMANSARA REALTY (JOHOR) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-25-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-25-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Development Agreement falls within CIPAA as a construction agreement; the Adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction and powers under s.25(m) and (n) to decide the claim despite absence of Joint Auditors' certificate; there was no basis under s.15 to set aside the Adjudication Decision; no special circumstances justified a stay under s.16; the Adjudication Decision is enforceable under s.28.
23 Jun 2025

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-132-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-132-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing since parties had adequate written opportunities, res judicata did not bar the subsequent adjudication because the asserted claims were not previously decided or paid as at IPC No.59, no fraud was established on the balance of probabilities or shown to have improperly procured the AD, and there were no special circumstances to warrant a stay pending arbitration; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and the enforcement orders sought in…
23 Jun 2025

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-133-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-133-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and in accordance with section 25 CIPAA in conducting the adjudication without an oral hearing, found res judicata did not apply because the later claims were not previously decided or paid as at IPC No.59, found no fraud or breach of natural justice, declined to grant a stay pending arbitration absent special circumstances or convincing insolvency risk, and therefore dismissed SUJV's applications and granted enforcement in terms of OS150.
19 May 2025

1. ) PUNG TIONG GEE 2. ) PUNG TIONG CHENG FORTUNE FACADE TREATMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-181-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-181-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the adjudication decision because the adjudicator improperly imposed a direction effectively barring the respondent from fully participating for non-payment of the ASD contrary to CIPAA and the AIAC rules, thereby breaching natural justice; the adjudicator also failed to address the applicant's request to refile or supplement its response and to consider the res judicata defence, creating a real possibility of a different outcome if properly considered.
13 Feb 2025

ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE 1. ) ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD 2. ) CHOON HON LENG 3. ) RAGAWANG CORPORATION SDN BHD 4. ) MENTERI KERJA RAYA 5. ) MENTERI DALAM JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI (UNDANG-UNDANG)

Citation

01(i)-31-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

01(i)-31-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that AIAC enjoys functional immunity under the IOPIA (First Schedule) which, read with s 11(5) IOPIA and the host country agreements, covers the AIAC's statutory adjudication functions under the CIPAA; the phrase 'suit and other legal process' includes judicial review unless clearly excluded; immunity is subject to functional limits and good faith, so acts ultra vires or done in bad faith fall outside immunity; on the facts AIAC acted within CIPAA and in good faith, thus immune from the judicial review proceedings.
9 Sept 2024

MMC GAMUDA KVMRT (PDP SSP) SDN BHD 1. ) SAPURA HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) EV-DYNAMIC SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-142-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-142-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Not specified in the provided excerpt.
29 Jul 2024

Grand Dynamic Builders Sdn Bhd KSK Land Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22C-32-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-32-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The AIS and annexed report formed part of scheme of arrangement material prepared by independent advisers and contained disclaimers; they did not constitute a clear, direct and unequivocal admission by the defendant. Material triable issues existed (set-off, pending arbitration, interpretation of PAM clause 25.4(d) and alleged duress) requiring viva voce evidence, therefore summary judgment and judgment on admission were inappropriate and both applications 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 court held the Adjudication Decision would not be set aside: the adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor exceed jurisdiction because he considered the issues raised (including alleged set-off), addressed whether the two letters fell within CIPAA, and properly treated service on the registered address; any alleged legal error was not reviewable on setting aside and was not a material breach affecting the outcome.
11 Jan 2024

ENQUEST PETROLEUM PRODUCTION MALAYSIA LTD PBJV GROUP SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-34-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-34-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found special circumstances existed (threat of execution, statutory demand and risk of appeal being rendered nugatory) and that defendant's alleged impecuniosity was not proven; accordingly granted a conditional partial stay of enforcement subject to the adjudicated sum and interest being deposited into an interest-bearing stakeholders account held by the Director of the Asian Arbitration Centre within five working days, failing which the stay will be dismissed.