Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cipaa s16 stay

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2023

AWP PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. CARLSON CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-65-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-65-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The AD was partly set aside because the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by determining the termination to be unlawful and defective when the contract was pleaded as mutually terminated and the issue of validity of termination was not contested, thereby depriving AWP of its set‑off; conversely the court found no breach of natural justice regarding the 'time at large' finding and declined to disturb that factual/legal conclusion.
11 Apr 2023

ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-118-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-118-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for committal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged contemnors wilfully disobeyed the Court of Appeal stay order; the stay order was not unambiguous as to removal of the Amended PO and any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the alleged contemnors, especially given the criminal nature of committal proceedings and pending related appeals.
31 Oct 2022

CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD RA SURIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-120-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-120-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the payment claim and the incorporated PAM 2006 terms, there was no breach of natural justice material to the outcome, and no clear and unequivocal error or special circumstance to justify a stay; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application was allowed, with costs awarded to CEDY.
23 Mar 2022

DAMAI CITY SDN BHD MCC OVERSEAS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-150-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-150-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held Damai City failed to establish denial of natural justice or that the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction; the preliminary objection that part-setting-aside prayer was bad in law was sustained; there were no clear and unequivocal errors or special circumstances justifying a stay; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed, with costs awarded to MCCO (RM15,000; RM8,000) and to MCCO on enforcement (RM5,000), all subject to allocatur.
30 Nov 2021

JAKS SDN BHD ZETA LETRIK SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-174-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-174-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the setting aside and stay applications and allowed enforcement because JAKS failed to prove denial of natural justice or that the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction; alleged errors were merits-based or fact findings and did not amount to clear and unequivocal errors to justify a stay; consequently the Adjudication Decision remained binding and enforceable.
30 Nov 2021

ZETA LETRIK SDN BHD JAKS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-153-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-153-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the s15 setting aside application and the s16 stay application and allowed the s28 enforcement application. The court held JAKS failed to establish denial of natural justice or that the Adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction; alleged errors were factual or evaluative matters not amounting to jurisdictional nullity; no clear and unequivocal errors or special circumstances justified a stay; therefore the adjudication decision was enforceable as a High Court judgment.
7 Oct 2021

Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd ATSA Architects Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-99-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-99-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

TM failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the adjudicator acted with apparent bias or denied natural justice or that the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction such that the Adjudication Decision must be set aside. Charging fees below LAM minimum did not render the LoA void as a matter of law. However, because an unresolved factual and legal issue remained as to whether an unregistered person acted as architect (a matter raised in Suit 479), it was just to stay enforcement of the Adjudication Decision pending disposal of that suit; accordingly the enforcement and setting-aside appl…
1 Apr 2021

1. ) BA-24C-103-10/2019 ENCORP ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 890165-W) 2. ) BA-24C-121-12/2019 KONSORTIUM IPMINES MERZ SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 1116110-U) 1. ) KONSORTIUM IPMINES MERZ SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 1116110-U) 2. ) ENCORP ISKANDA

Citation

BA-24C-103-10/2019 & BA-24C-121-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-103-10/2019 & BA-24C-121-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application (enclosure 9) was dismissed because the applicant's grounds for stay on appeal were substantially the same as those earlier advanced and rejected in the s16(1)(b) CIPAA stay application; the applicant failed to satisfy the lower View Esteem test and therefore could not meet the higher 'special circumstances' threshold required for a stay pending appeal, compounded by CIPAA's objective to protect cashflow and lack of evidence of respondent's commercial insolvency.
9 Nov 2020

1. ) JEKS ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) PALI PTP SDN BHD 1. ) PALI PTP SDN BHD 2. ) JEKS ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-5-01/2020 & WA-24C-13-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-5-01/2020 & WA-24C-13-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that PALI failed to prove fraud or material denial of natural justice; however the Adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by determining variation claims that related to interim payment certificate No.24 which were not due at the time of the Payment Claim; accordingly the Court set aside the portion of the AD awarding RM5,143,817.34 for variation works (and related interest) for breach of jurisdiction under s15(d), severed that part, allowed enforcement of the remainder (RM3,368,919.69 with interest at 7.75% p.a.), reduced adjudication costs proportionally to RM60,929.00, and di…
29 Nov 2019

TSR BINA SDN BHD HIFORM (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-107-06/2019 & WA-24C-115-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-107-06/2019 & WA-24C-115-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the adjudicator did not commit material breaches of natural justice nor act beyond her CIPAA jurisdiction: she heard parties, considered remeasurement evidence, gave reasons for preferring the Payment Claim figure, addressed variation orders and time issues as consequential to TSR’s LAD defence, and was entitled to consider time at large. TSR’s new complaints were largely afterthoughts not raised at adjudication. There were no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay; enforcement under s28 CIPAA was therefore granted and the setting aside and stay applications dismi…