Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cipaa s30 direct payment

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2025

KINU SDN. BHD. Kerajaan Malaysia (Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia)

Citation

W-01(C)(A)-523-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-01(C)(A)-523-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

JKR qualified as the "principal" under s4 CIPAA; the undisputed retention/performance guarantee constituted money "due or payable" or at least "payable" under s30(5) at the time the subcontractor's s30(1) request was made; JKR failed to discharge its evidential burden (did not serve s30(2) notice and did not produce Certificate of Termination Costs), permitting an adverse inference; accordingly direct payment under s30(3) was ordered to satisfy the adjudicated amount.
24 Jun 2024

TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN BHD KL ECO CITY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-15-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-15-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found that at the time the valid s30 request was received by the defendant the only sum due or payable to the main contractor in respect of the plaintiff was the retention sum of RM998,653.66 which the defendant paid; subsequent Settlement Agreement and Final Certificate demonstrated the net payable position was RM87,916.92; therefore the defendant was not liable to pay the plaintiff the claimed balance of RM192,970.76 and the plaintiff's application was dismissed.
20 Mar 2023

PROGRESS CENTRE ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) DESARU CORNICHE HOTEL SDN BHD 2. ) MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-187-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-187-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the evidence that MRCB and MRCB Builders were in a principal–agent relationship accepted by Desaru through conduct; Desaru treated MRCB/MRCB Builders as a single economic unit and therefore Desaru was the employer and the "principal" for s30 purposes. The court also found there were monies due or payable by Desaru to MRCB/MRCB Builders in respect of outstanding variation orders at the time Desaru received the s30 request. Desaru failed to serve the s30(2) notice or pay; accordingly s30(3) applied and Desaru was ordered to pay the adjudicated sum together with interest and a…
13 Jan 2023

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (M) SDN. BHD. DESARU CORNICHE HOTEL SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24C-31-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-31-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that employers cannot rely on a dispute resolution agreement with the main contractor to resist a subcontractor’s s30 CIPAA application; s13(b) only bars enforcement where a written settlement between the parties to the adjudication exists on the subject matter; plaintiff satisfied conditions 1, 2 and 4 and, because defendants failed to produce contract and project documents, the evidential burden under s106 EA shifted to them and was not discharged, permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) EA; consequently the principals are liable under s30 CIPAA to pay the adjudicated s…
13 Jan 2023

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (M) SDN. BHD. DESARU CONVENTION CENTRE SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24C-29-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-29-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

An employer/principal cannot rely on a dispute resolution agreement with the main contractor to defeat a subcontractor's s30 CIPAA application; s13(b) only operates where the subject matter has been settled by written agreement between the parties to that adjudication decision; the plaintiff proved the statutory conditions under s30 and the defendants failed to discharge the evidential burden to show no sums were due or payable, so the court ordered the principals to pay the adjudicated amounts with interest (excluding adjudication costs).
24 Nov 2022

ZEDELTA SDN BHD MAYLAND SUPREME SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-143-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-143-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Plaintiff had satisfied s 30 CIPAA prerequisites and the Defendant, as principal, failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove that no money was due or payable to CR Sea at the time of the written request (2.6.2022). Accordingly, the Defendant was obliged under s 30(3) CIPAA to make direct payment to the Plaintiff. The Court followed precedent construing 'adjudicated amount' to allow interest on the adjudicated sum and awarded interest from the Court's decision date and costs as ordered.
7 Jun 2022

MEGATECH M&E ENGINEERING SERI MUTIARA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-89-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-89-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to invoke inherent jurisdiction under O92 r4 when O18 r19 RC expressly governs strike-out; the originating summonses were not plain and obvious candidates for striking out because s30 CIPAA creates a statutory cause of action. Prior High Court findings affirmed by the Court of Appeal that lifted the corporate veil and identified Brecon and Seri Mutiara as Axisjaya’s principals produced issue estoppel that barred defendants from denying principal status. Defendants failed to discharge the evidential burden under s106 EA to show no sums were due or payable at the time of deman…
8 Apr 2022

SUN DB CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS)

Citation

BA-24C-84-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-84-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant discharged the evidential burden under s106 EA by adducing credible documentary and contractual evidence showing that no sum was due or payable to KP at the time of receipt of the Plaintiff's demand (29.10.2021); accordingly the Plaintiff failed to prove the s30(5) condition and the originating summons is dismissed with costs. Retention sum was not shown to be due or payable and the Defendant was entitled to call/forfeit the performance bond.
15 Feb 2022

ZETA LETRIK SDN BHD JAKS ISLAND CIRCLE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-193-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-193-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the request was valid; Defendant failed to serve the mandatory s30(2) notice to the contractor and did not discharge its evidential burden to prove no money was due or payable as at receipt; therefore under s30(3) CIPAA the Defendant was compelled to pay the adjudicated sum of RM6,160,776.36 to the Plaintiff. 'Adjudicated amount' does not include interest or adjudication costs in this context.
25 Nov 2020

GLOCAL TECH ENGINEERING SDN BHD PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-153-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-153-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove MKP had not paid the adjudicated amount and the defendant discharged the evidential burden under s 30(5) by showing there was no money due or payable to MKP at the time of receipt of the s 30 request (pending Suit 421 with substantial counterclaims); therefore the mandatory precondition in s 30(5) was not satisfied and s 30 could not be invoked to compel direct payment.