Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of adjudication decision pending arbitration

Legal area

Court

26 Jul 2024

AGILE PJD DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-37-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-37-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the setting aside application failed because the CNC was never before the Adjudicator and Agile had opportunities to produce it; no breach of natural justice or clear and unequivocal error was shown; the stay was refused because CCYR is financially secure and CIPAA’s scheme favors speedy recovery; accordingly enforcement of the Adjudication Decision was granted.
15 Nov 2023

MERIDIAN CONTRACTS SDN BHD BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-123-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-123-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Meridian satisfied the statutory requirements for enforcement under s 28 CIPAA: there was an adjudication decision in its favour, non-payment, and no bar to enforcement (no s 15 application, no written settlement, no final decision). Although Bauer met the procedural prerequisite for s 16(1)(b) (arbitration pending), the court exercised its discretion to refuse a stay because allowing a stay would undermine CIPAA's cashflow objective, the arbitration timetable was uncertain, Meridian's financial position was sufficient to meet the adjudicated sum if necessary, and a conditional stay was inapp…
15 Nov 2023

BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD MERIDIAN CONTRACTS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-134-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-134-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Enforcement Application was allowed because Meridian satisfied the s28 CIPAA criteria (adjudication decision in its favour, non-payment and no set aside or stay) and Bauer had not applied to set aside the 3rd AD under s15; the Stay Application was dismissed because although arbitration was pending, Bauer did not demonstrate clear and unequivocal error nor that justice required a stay, and Meridian's financial position indicated it could repay the adjudicated sum, while granting a stay would undermine CIPAA's statutory purpose to protect cashflow.

Malaysia Case Law

AGILE PJD DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

MERIDIAN CONTRACTS SDN BHD BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD MERIDIAN CONTRACTS SDN BHD