Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Direct payment under section 30 cipaa

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2025

IEC POWER ENGINEERING SDN BHD DANGA JED DEVELOPMENT MALAYSIA SDN BHD (dahulu dikenali sebagai Greenland Danga Bay Sdn Bhd)

Citation

JA-24C-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24C-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's s.30 application was dismissed because plaintiff failed to discharge the initial legal burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that there was a sum 'due or payable' by the defendant to CTMCC at the time the s.30 notice was served, therefore s.30(5) CIPAA 2012 was not satisfied and the direct payment remedy could not be ordered.
21 Aug 2025

CHOP LEE HUAT CERMIN & ALUMINIUM SDN BHD Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

KA-24C-1-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24C-1-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove GOM was the principal to OBC for s30 purposes, failed to satisfy section 30(5) that money was due or payable by the principal to the contractor (GOM produced IPC No.62 showing payments made), and failed to properly serve the Section 30 notice as required by the contract and statute; consequently the statutory prerequisites to invoke section 30 CIPAA were not met.