Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Direct payment from principal

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2023

COSMOS INFRATECH SDN BHD TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-92-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-92-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s.30 CIPAA is a specific statutory regime that takes precedence over the general moratorium and preference provisions of the Companies Act 2016; because monies were due or payable by the principal to the contractor at the time the s.30 request was received, the principal was statutorily obliged to make direct payment under s.30(3) CIPAA to the Plaintiff and the judicial management moratorium did not invalidate that obligation.
17 Mar 2021

MUDAJAYA CORPORATION SDN BHD LEMBAGA GETAH MALAYSIA DAN 2 LAGI

Citation

WA-24C-56-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-56-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held s.30 CIPAA was inapplicable because the relevant principal contract (the PDP Agreement) predated the commencement of CIPAA and the right to compel direct payment under s.30 affects substantive contractual rights; applying s.30 retrospectively would impair those rights, therefore inapplicability of CIPAA is a complete defence and the originating summons is dismissed.
8 Oct 2020

1. ) CHONG LEK ENGINEERING WORKS SDN. BHD. (BA-24C-42-05/2020) (Co. No.: 602149-A) 2. ) CHONG LEK ENGINEERING WORKS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 602149-A) 1. ) PFCE INTEGRATED PLANT AND PROJECT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 608921-V) 2. ) PFCE INTEGRATED PLAN

Citation

BA-24C-42-05/2020 & BA-24C-43-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-42-05/2020 & BA-24C-43-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved conditions in s30 CIPAA; once plaintiff proved non-payment, written request and non-payment by principal, evidential burden under s106 EA shifted to defendant to prove no sum was due or payable at time of request; defendant failed to discharge that burden and suppressed material documents (adverse inference under s114(g)); court therefore ordered defendant (as principal) to pay the adjudicated amounts (excluding adjudication costs), awarded interest and costs and lifted the corporate veil to reveal common family control which reinforced the finding of self-serving motive to a…
14 Nov 2019

IREKA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 384566-U) TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 532838-W)

Citation

BA-24C-81-07/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA BA-24C-89-08/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA BA-24C-94-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-81-07/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA BA-24C-89-08/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA BA-24C-94-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The adjudicator did not breach s20 CIPAA because the query to the employer was an exercise of statutory inquisitorial power under s25(i) and fell within s20(d); Clauses 19.4 and 19.5 are void conditional payment provisions under s35(1) and in any event errors in applying contract terms do not establish excess of jurisdiction under s15(d); refusal to permit a rejoinder did not breach the second rule of natural justice given statutory procedure and timetable; the Setting Aside originating summons is dismissed, leave to enforce the adjudication decision under s28 CIPAA is granted, and the interi…

Malaysia Case Law

COSMOS INFRATECH SDN BHD TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

MUDAJAYA CORPORATION SDN BHD LEMBAGA GETAH MALAYSIA DAN 2 LAGI

1. ) CHONG LEK ENGINEERING WORKS SDN. BHD. (BA-24C-42-05/2020) (Co. No.: 602149-A) 2. ) CHONG LEK ENGINEERING WORKS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 602149-A) 1. ) PFCE INTEGRATED PLANT AND PROJECT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 608921-V) 2. ) PFCE INTEGRATED PLAN

IREKA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 384566-U) TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 532838-W)