Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of adjudication decision under s16 cipaa

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2024

MERAH BAYU GLOBAL SDN. BHD. TK ELEVATOR MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-145-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-145-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application under s16(1)(b) CIPAA was dismissed because Merah Bayu did not establish that arbitration had commenced in accordance with the contract and PAM Rules (mere service of a Notice of Arbitration was insufficient), and it failed to demonstrate clear and unequivocal errors in the Adjudication Decision or that the interests of justice warranted a stay. The enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed because TKE met statutory conditions for enforcement, Merah Bayu had not filed a s15 setting aside application and therefore could not rely on s15 grounds to resist enforceme…
10 Jul 2023

Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd S&S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-23-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-23-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor act in excess of jurisdiction by seeking clarifications and considering the material and clarification letters; those acts were a proper exercise of s25 CIPAA powers and the matters considered fell within the scope of the adjudication (including RIPC 21); although certain declaratory prayers in OS16 were defective for failure to cite the Specific Relief Act s41 in the intitulement, on the substantive merits the setting aside application failed and was dismissed; accordingly the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed and Order 69…
4 Jun 2021

Ong Teik Beng (No KP: 710925-07-5589 berniaga sebagai MJVConstruction) Wow Hotel Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 1322726-A)

Citation

PA-24C-4-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24C-4-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant failed to satisfy the narrow statutory thresholds in s15 CIPAA: the adjudicator afforded procedural fairness and did not act beyond jurisdiction; the quotation and parties' conduct established a written contract or estoppel; the Evidence Act did not bind adjudication proceedings; there was no clear or manifest error to justify a stay under s16; therefore the application to set aside and the stay were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforceable and ordered to be treated as a High Court judgment.
24 Dec 2020

1. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-181-08/2020, WA-24C-182-08/2020 & WA-24C-213-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-181-08/2020, WA-24C-182-08/2020 & WA-24C-213-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction: the rectified amounts were corrections to earlier interim/payment claims and thus constituted unpaid items eligible under ss4-5 CIPAA; consideration of supporting documents (including RFIs and materials in claimant's possession or generated by respondent) did not oust jurisdiction and was within s25 powers; the 2nd stay application was procedurally flawed and, in any event, barred by issue estoppel because the same allegations (corruption and financial impecuniosity) had been considered and rejected in an earlier stay appli…

Malaysia Case Law

MERAH BAYU GLOBAL SDN. BHD. TK ELEVATOR MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd S&S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd

Ong Teik Beng (No KP: 710925-07-5589 berniaga sebagai MJVConstruction) Wow Hotel Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 1322726-A)

1. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) MERSING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD