Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of "adjudicated amount"

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2021

BOND M&E SDN. BHD. PALI PTP SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-121-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-121-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Plaintiff met s30 CIPAA conditions: the BOND AD existed, JEKS had not paid, the Plaintiff served a written request, and the Defendant failed to serve the mandatory s30(2) notice so no proof of payment was shown; the Defendant was a "principal" and money was payable to JEKS at the time of the request. However, "adjudicated amount" in s30(1) and s30(3) does not include interest and costs, therefore only the principal adjudicated sum was recoverable. Consequently the application was allowed in part: Defendant ordered to pay RM3,387,425.44 and costs RM10,000.00 (subject to…
18 Dec 2019

CABNET SYSTEMS [M] SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 355065-V) 1. DEKAD KALIBER SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 684176-H) 2. RIMARISAN SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 292492-H)

Citation

BA-24C-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Novation effected under s63 Contracts Act made the 2nd Defendant the principal of the subcontractor within s4 CIPAA; the Plaintiff satisfied s30 CIPAA conditions and therefore the 2nd Defendant is liable to pay the adjudicated sum together with pre- and post-adjudication interest (but not adjudication costs); such payment does not constitute an undue preference under Companies Act s528(1) in light of CT Indah, and s471(1) did not prohibit commencement of the originating summons; the 1st Defendant is penalized in costs for withholding the novation document.

Malaysia Case Law

BOND M&E SDN. BHD. PALI PTP SDN. BHD.

CABNET SYSTEMS [M] SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 355065-V) 1. DEKAD KALIBER SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 684176-H) 2. RIMARISAN SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 292492-H)