Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appointment of adjudicator

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2023

CTY FACADE BUILDER SDN BHD GD BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-202-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-202-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the adjudicator had jurisdiction under CIPAA to determine the matters referred, there was no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction in the adjudicator's treatment of the progress claims, termination and related issues were matters for the adjudicator and his findings would not be reheard, the conditional payment clause was void under s35 CIPAA, and none of the limited grounds in s15 CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision were made out; accordingly the application to set aside (OS216) was dismissed and the enforcement application (OS202) was granted and…
16 Jan 2023

Chan Sock Mun and Lim Shuk Kim [Messrs Tan Chuan Yong & S.M. Chan] Leong Chee Weng [Messrs Tuang, Chu & Co.]

Citation

SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-148-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-148-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the claimant in the adjudication (Galaxy Plumbing & Construction) was a sole proprietorship not sued in the individual proprietor's name and therefore lacked legal personality to commence proceedings under CIPAA, the adjudicator acted without jurisdiction; the adjudication Decision is set aside and enforcement dismissed as a consequence.
25 Aug 2020

KLIA ASSOCIATES SDN BHD & SATU LAGI MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

wa-24c-258-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

wa-24c-258-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Decision was upheld because (1) the consortium lacked separate legal personality so the constituent companies were correctly named as parties, (2) the AIAC director validly appointed the adjudicator under s.21(b) CIPAA where there was no agreement on an adjudicator, and (3) the Contract is in substance a construction contract under s.4 CIPAA; consequently the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction and the adjudication decision is enforceable.
17 Feb 2020

MASTERPLAN CONSULTNG SDN BHD MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-150-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-150-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that (1) an arbitration clause does not oust CIPAA adjudication jurisdiction because adjudication may run concurrently with arbitration under s.37 CIPAA; (2) s.8(1) does not make supporting documents to a notice of adjudication mandatory such that their absence voids the notice; and (3) s.21 permits direct appointment by the adjudication institution without prior nomination by the claimant to the respondent; therefore the setting aside applications failed and enforcement applications succeeded.
13 Sept 2019

SYARIKAT T.D. SDN BHD JEKS ENGINEERING SDN BHD JEKS ENGINEERING SDN BHD SYARIKAT T.D. SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-13-01/2019 & WA-24C-38-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-13-01/2019 & WA-24C-38-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held STD failed to establish any s15 CIPAA ground: AIAC's administrative conduct and appointment did not breach CIPAA or natural justice; the adjudicator considered submissions and did not go on a 'frolic' or decide issues never argued; refusal to entertain cross-contract set-offs was correct under CIPAA and s14; awarding of interest was within s25(o); no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay under s16 were shown. Therefore the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and enforcement under s28 CIPAA granted.

Malaysia Case Law

CTY FACADE BUILDER SDN BHD GD BUILDERS SDN BHD

Chan Sock Mun and Lim Shuk Kim [Messrs Tan Chuan Yong & S.M. Chan] Leong Chee Weng [Messrs Tuang, Chu & Co.]

KLIA ASSOCIATES SDN BHD & SATU LAGI MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD

MASTERPLAN CONSULTNG SDN BHD MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN BHD

SYARIKAT T.D. SDN BHD JEKS ENGINEERING SDN BHD JEKS ENGINEERING SDN BHD SYARIKAT T.D. SDN BHD