Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cipaa enforcement

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2024

INTERIA SDN BHD HALUAN PRISMA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-27-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-27-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the application to set aside the adjudication decision because the adjudicator acted within statutory powers, did not commit a breach of natural justice in the manner alleged, the disputes raised amounted to merits issues not covered by section 15, and therefore the adjudication decision was enforceable under section 28 CIPAA; enforcement granted and order in terms of the enforcement originating summons awarded.
17 Sept 2024

OKG (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. GOODWINDS INTERIOR DESIGN SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-26-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-26-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction nor act without independence or impartiality because he addressed the relevant legal questions, correctly classified the scope as construction works rather than regulated interior design consultancy, considered the evidence and submissions, and therefore the setting aside application failed; consequently the adjudication decision was enforceable and enforcement ordered.
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.
11 Dec 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-171-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-171-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the Payment Claim despite prior arbitration (relying on s37 CIPAA and federal authority), the Payment Claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA when read with accompanying correspondence, the adjudicator did not deny natural justice in exercising procedural powers under s25(a), and errors on merits do not constitute grounds to set aside under s15; accordingly OS170 (setting aside) was dismissed, OS171 (stay) dismissed, and enforcement under OS172 granted pursuant to s28 CIPAA.
25 Jul 2023

EAKONMECH SDN BHD MAPLE STEEL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-217-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-217-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the Adjudicator acted within the scope of the payment claim and the CIPAA: the L4/L5 smoke spill works were raised in the Payment Claim as variation/remeasurement works and supported by as-built drawings, the Adjudicator was entitled under s25(m) to adjust IPC No.11 including retention, and the parties were given directions and opportunities to submit so there was no denial of natural justice. Eakonmech failed to discharge the burden to set aside the adjudication decision under s15(b)/(d); the enforcement application under s28 is therefore allowed.
27 Feb 2023

GD BUILDERS SDN BHD CTY FACADE BUILDER SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-215-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-215-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the adjudicator validly exercised jurisdiction under CIPAA to determine the payment disputes (including issues touching on delay and termination) and did not deny natural justice nor act in excess of jurisdiction; accordingly the setting aside application (OS 216) failed and the adjudication decision was enforceable under s28 CIPAA; OS 216 dismissed with costs and the enforcement application (OS 202) granted in terms, making the stay application academic.
27 Feb 2023

CTY FACADE BUILDER SDN BHD GD BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-202-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-202-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the adjudicator had jurisdiction under CIPAA to determine the matters referred, there was no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction in the adjudicator's treatment of the progress claims, termination and related issues were matters for the adjudicator and his findings would not be reheard, the conditional payment clause was void under s35 CIPAA, and none of the limited grounds in s15 CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision were made out; accordingly the application to set aside (OS216) was dismissed and the enforcement application (OS202) was granted and…
9 Feb 2022

YEAN PENG CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. OOI BAH SENG & SONS SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-24C-2-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24C-2-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the existence of a separate civil suit does not, by itself, constitute a meritorious reason to stay an adjudication decision where the defendant has not availed itself of the statutory remedy to set aside the adjudication under s15 CIPAA; the defendant’s reliance on the civil suit and interlocutory steps is not a proper substitute for a s15 application and does not justify restraining enforcement. Consequently, the stay application was academic because enforcement was ordered in the related proceeding with payment to plaintiffs’ solicitors as stakeholder.
17 Jan 2022

RAPS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-18-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-18-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the adjudicator did not breach the rules of natural justice in any material way and even if a procedural flaw existed it would not have altered the outcome; the arbitration relied upon by Itramas was not lawfully instituted due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-arbitration steps so s16(1)(b) did not entitle a stay, and the court therefore allowed enforcement under s28 CIPAA while granting only an ad interim stay of execution on appeal but prohibiting use of frozen funds.
25 Nov 2021

JA24C(ARB)--07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

JA24C(ARB)--07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

JA24C(ARB)--07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found credible evidence of Defendant's insolvency (admitted), frozen accounts, audited deficits and failure to pay over RM80,000 in court-ordered costs; these factors raised reasonable doubt as to Defendant's ability to pay costs, justifying an order for security for costs. Considering the adjudication award (RM1,020,467.42), prior unpaid costs and Defendant's RM5m claim, RM400,000 security was proportionate and ordered with costs to Plaintiff.