Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of adjudication decision (s28 cipaa)

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-166-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-166-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s37(1) CIPAA is permissive and must be construed purposively; adjudication may be initiated even after arbitration or court proceedings commence and does not ipso facto oust adjudicator jurisdiction. The payment claim met s5(2) CIPAA requirements; there was no jurisdictional excess nor breach of natural justice warranting setting aside. No clear and unequivocal errors or injustice justified a stay. Consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforced as a High Court judgment.
28 Jul 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-165-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-165-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held s37(1) CIPAA must be read purposively: "may" is permissive and "referred concurrently" does not demand literal simultaneous commencement; adjudication may be initiated after arbitration has commenced so long as CIPAA's purpose (swift payment relief) is respected. The Payment Claim complied with s5(2); the adjudicator did not act beyond jurisdiction nor breach natural justice; there were no clear and unequivocal errors or justice reasons to justify a stay; enforcement under s28(1) CIPAA was therefore granted.
29 Nov 2019

1. ) ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD 1. ) ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD 2. ) ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-113-07/2019, WA-24C-118-07/2019 & WA-24C-173-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-113-07/2019, WA-24C-118-07/2019 & WA-24C-173-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Payment Claim met s5(2)(a) CIPAA by reference to contractual clauses and statutory defaults and that the adjudicator considered the right issues and afforded adequate procedural fairness; there was no jurisdictional excess or denial of natural justice in the adjudicator's factual findings on extension of time, liquidated damages and defects; ASM failed to demonstrate special circumstances to justify a stay; accordingly the adjudication decision was valid and enforceable and enforcement was ordered while the arbitration proceeds.
11 Sept 2019

KURNIAAN MAJU SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 281633-D) HSA SETIAMURNI SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 574981-V)

Citation

BA-24C-79-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-79-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed that a hybrid originating summons is permissible, dismissed the s16(1)(b) CIPAA stay application because the plaintiff failed to show clear error by the adjudicator or that staying the adjudication was justified given prejudice to the defendant and lack of evidence of plaintiff insolvency, held the adjudication decision rendered the defendant a creditor under s464(1)(b) CA entitled to present a winding up petition, and although the court has power to grant a Fortuna injunction it refused to do so because the defendant was exercising bona fide statutory rights and there was n…

Malaysia Case Law

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

1. ) ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD 1. ) ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD 2. ) ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

KURNIAAN MAJU SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 281633-D) HSA SETIAMURNI SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 574981-V)