Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cipaa jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

Apple 99 Development Sdn. Bhd. Kerjaya Prospek (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24C-30-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-30-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Settlement Agreement removed the contractual right to monetary payment under the Construction Contract and substituted exclusive non-monetary default remedies (transfer of the Hotel and Unsold Units); therefore the dispute was not a 'payment' under s.4 CIPAA and fell outside the adjudicator's core jurisdiction. Additionally, Kerjaya Prospek's election to pursue specific performance precluded it from pursuing inconsistent monetary relief by adjudication. The adjudication decision was therefore set aside.
17 Oct 2025

KERJAYA PROSPEK (M) SDN BHD APPLE 99 DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-31-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-31-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Settlement Agreement removed the contractual payment obligation under the Construction Contract and replaced it with non-monetary default remedies (transfer of the Hotel and Unsold Units); accordingly the dispute was not a ‘payment’ within s4 CIPAA and the adjudicator lacked core jurisdiction to decide the monetary claim. Further, Kerjaya Prospek had elected specific performance in the civil suit and could not pursue an inconsistent monetary adjudication. Therefore the Adjudication Decision was set aside and enforcement cannot proceed.
8 Jan 2024

ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD JKP SDN BHD

Citation

02(f)-4-01/2023(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-4-01/2023(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by deciding the dispute based on clause 36.6 which was not identified in the Payment Claim or Payment Response as required by ss5 and 6 read with s27(1) of CIPAA; further, failure to invite parties to address the application of clause 36.6 was a denial of natural justice; accordingly the Court of Appeal's setting aside of the High Court's orders was affirmed and the appellant's Federal Court appeals dismissed.
8 Jan 2024

ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD JKP SDN BHD

Citation

02(f)-3-01/2023(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-3-01/2023(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the dispute on clause 36.6 which was not identified in the Payment Claim or Payment Response as required by ss5 and 6 and s27(1) of CIPAA, and by failing to give the parties an opportunity to submit on that clause thereby denying natural justice; accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the Court of Appeal decisions affirmed.
11 Dec 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-161-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-161-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction despite arbitration having been commenced earlier because s.37 CIPAA permits adjudication to proceed and adjudication may be activated at any time where there is a valid payment claim; the Payment Claim (together with its covering letter) complied with s.5(2) CIPAA; there was no breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction under s.15; accordingly the challenge (OS160) was dismissed, the adjudication decision was ordered enforced (OS162) under s.28 CIPAA, and the application for stay (OS161) was dismissed.
24 Aug 2023

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-186-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-186-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudicator had jurisdiction because the Payment Claim complied with s5 CIPAA; the Adjudicator acted within powers under CIPAA (including s25 and sub-s27(3)), did not breach natural justice in a manner warranting setting aside, and there were no clear and unequivocal errors justifying a stay; accordingly the applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed and the enforcement application was allowed.
24 Aug 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-183-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-183-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

TNB failed to prove lack of jurisdiction, non-compliance with s5(2) or breach of natural justice; the Adjudicator acted within statutory powers (including reliance on the parties' Recommended Valuation) and provided adequate reasons; therefore the applications to set aside and to stay the Adjudication Decision were dismissed and the enforcement application was allowed.
28 Feb 2023

TUV SUD (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD INTISARI MULIA ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-129-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-129-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudicator had core jurisdiction because the parties' contractual relationship was evidenced in writing by purchase orders, invoices, correspondence and partial payments (s 2 CIPAA interpreted liberally); the Payment Claim satisfied statutory requirements; the adjudicator afforded adequate procedural fairness and did not act in excess of jurisdiction; accordingly the Setting Aside Application was dismissed and the Adjudication Decision enforced.
16 Jan 2023

Chan Sock Mun and Lim Shuk Kim [Messrs Tan Chuan Yong & S.M. Chan] Leong Chee Weng [Messrs Tuang, Chu & Co.]

Citation

SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-155-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-155-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that a sole proprietorship trading under a business name that does not constitute a separate legal personality lacks capacity to commence adjudication in that trading name; accordingly the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the adjudication decision dated 6.7.2022 was set aside; OS 148 granted and OS 155 dismissed.
25 Aug 2022

Wabina Constructions & Engineering Sdn Bhd Fulloop Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-42-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-42-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction because the contract and Letter of Award expressly prevented creation of privity between the employer and the nominated subcontractor despite direct payments by the employer; the SFA was admissible supporting evidence for the Progress Claim and did not create a new cause of action; there was no denial of natural justice or reversal of burden warranting setting aside; the adjudicator's costs award was within his statutory discretion; there were no special circumstances to stay enforcement pending arbitration between Wabina and the employer (Seal)…