Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Construction contract made in writing

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2024

INTISARI MULIA ENGINEERING SDN BHD TUV SUD (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-538-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-538-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeals, holding that TUV failed to prove on the evidence that the alleged contracts were "construction contracts" related to "construction work" within s 4 CIPAA; therefore the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction in deciding the claim and the adjudication decision and consequent High Court orders were set aside.
8 Nov 2024

INTISARI MULIA ENGINEERING SDN BHD TUV SUD (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-539-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-539-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held TUV failed to prove the two statutory elements required by s 2 CIPAA: (1) that the asserted documents amounted to a "construction contract made in writing" and (2) that the works claimed were related to "construction work" as defined in s 4. Because TUV did not prove the material facts connecting its invoices/purchase orders to construction work, the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction; the adjudication decision and the High Court enforcement order were set aside. ACC 03 is advisory guidance only and cannot cure lack of statutory jurisdiction.