Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Payment claim validity

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2023

ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-157-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-157-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the Payment Claim provided sufficient basic information under s 5(2) CIPAA and the adjudicator had competency jurisdiction to decide the disputed items; the adjudication decision was not rendered void by the withholding/payment deposit procedure and delivery of the AD on 1.8.2022 was within the statutory framework; the adjudicator's appointment was valid despite unsigned request and s 26 treated procedural irregularity as not invalidating jurisdiction; there was no breach of natural justice. Therefore the Setting Aside and Stay Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Applicat…
8 Aug 2022

Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-98-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-98-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction: the rectified amounts were refinements of previously submitted interim claims and not new or premature claims, the Payment Claim met s.5 CIPAA requirements so Mersing was an 'unpaid party', and the adjudicator had statutory power under s.25 to adjudicate those items; appeal dismissed.