Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of adjudicator

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2025

MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(C)(A)-2185-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(A)-2185-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA by allowing standalone late payment interest claims relating to Certificates 1-46 where the principal amounts had already been paid because such claims were not "payment" within s4 CIPAA and therefore outside the adjudicator's core jurisdiction; accordingly the setting aside application was allowed in part, the adjudication award was varied to deduct RM1,610,732.87 (with refund and interest), and the enforcement order was varied correspondingly while upholding the remainder of the adjudication dec…
29 Sept 2025

MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(C)(A)-2178-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(A)-2178-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the adjudicator exceeded her jurisdiction in awarding late payment interest calculated for Certificates 1–46 where the principal amounts had already been paid because a stand-alone claim for late payment interest of that nature is not a 'payment' under s4 CIPAA; accordingly the setting-aside application is allowed in part, the adjudicated sum is reduced by RM1,610,732.87 which Setiakon must refund plus interest RM95,176.42, and enforcement is varied on the same terms.
4 Jul 2025

Perbadanan Putrajaya DAMANSARA REALTY (JOHOR) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-24-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-24-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Development Agreement fell within CIPAA as a construction agreement; the adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction by deciding without Joint Auditors' certification because sections 25(m) and 25(n) empower the adjudicator to decide notwithstanding absent certificates; consequently the Adjudication Decision was not set aside, the stay was refused, and enforcement was allowed.
4 Jul 2025

Damansara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd Perbadanan Putrajaya

Citation

WA-24C-37-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-37-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudicator acted within jurisdiction: the Development Agreement qualified as a construction contract under CIPAA; the absence of Joint Auditors' certification did not bar adjudication because of s25(m) and s25(n); section 15 challenge could not succeed absent jurisdictional error; no special circumstances justified a stay; therefore the Adjudication Decision was enforceable under section 28 CIPAA.
4 Jul 2025

Perbadanan Putrajaya DAMANSARA REALTY (JOHOR) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-25-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-25-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Development Agreement falls within CIPAA as a construction agreement; the Adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction and powers under s.25(m) and (n) to decide the claim despite absence of Joint Auditors' certificate; there was no basis under s.15 to set aside the Adjudication Decision; no special circumstances justified a stay under s.16; the Adjudication Decision is enforceable under s.28.
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.
17 Sept 2024

GOODWINDS PROJECT SOLUTIONS SDN BHD OKG (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-44-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-44-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction and acted independently and impartially because he posed the correct legal question, considered the Cost Proposal and evidence and reasonably concluded the works were construction/fit‑out works not regulated interior design consultancy under the Architects Act; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication award was ordered enforced.
17 Sept 2024

OKG (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. GOODWINDS INTERIOR DESIGN SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-26-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-26-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction nor act without independence or impartiality because he addressed the relevant legal questions, correctly classified the scope as construction works rather than regulated interior design consultancy, considered the evidence and submissions, and therefore the setting aside application failed; consequently the adjudication decision was enforceable and enforcement ordered.
16 May 2024

KT GLOBAL RESOURCES SDN BHD CSCECPE SDN BHD

Citation

JA-24C-18-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24C-18-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The respondent failed to demonstrate that the adjudicator committed a material breach of natural justice or acted beyond his jurisdiction under s.15(b) or (d) CIPAA; the matters complained of were merits already ventilated before the adjudicator and the contractual choice of law/arbitration did not displace CIPAA; therefore the set aside application is dismissed and enforcement under s.28 is allowed.