Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside adjudication

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2024

Era Universe Development Sdn Bhd Ken Lip Construction & Trading Sdn. Bhd

Citation

JA-24C-22-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24C-22-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the cause of action accrued on breach when Era Universe failed to pay certified sums, Era Universe failed to establish any s.15 CIPAA ground to set aside the adjudication decision (including non-compliance with clause 30), and therefore the adjudication decision is enforceable under s.28 CIPAA; accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and enforcement granted.
20 Sept 2024

INTERIA SDN BHD HALUAN PRISMA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-27-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-27-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the application to set aside the adjudication decision because the adjudicator acted within statutory powers, did not commit a breach of natural justice in the manner alleged, the disputes raised amounted to merits issues not covered by section 15, and therefore the adjudication decision was enforceable under section 28 CIPAA; enforcement granted and order in terms of the enforcement originating summons awarded.
6 Aug 2024

TERA VA SDN. BHD. AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD.

Citation

B-02(C)(A)-1948-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(A)-1948-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court dismissed both appeals: TVA failed to prove fraud or denial of natural justice under s15 CIPAA so the adjudication decision stands; ABI was entitled to raise a cross-claim in response but a cross-claim may only reduce or zeroise the claimant's claim and cannot exceed it to make the respondent a substantive claimant; although the adjudicator awarded a net sum in favour of the respondent exceeding the claimant's claim (which would be excess of jurisdiction), that ground was not pleaded and therefore the appeals were dismissed with costs to ABI.
2 Aug 2024

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD GLOBAL WALL(MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-162-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-162-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudication Decision dated 2.10.2023 was not a nullity: the Payment Claim complied with CIPAA, no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction was established, and the stay pending arbitration was unjustified; however the judge found RM8,046,404.58 had already been paid by Samsung JV and ordered that amount to be deducted/severed from enforcement. Consequently applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed with costs and the enforcement application was allowed in part with directions to release stakeholder funds accordingly.
9 Feb 2022

YEAN PENG CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. OOI BAH SENG & SONS SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-24C-2-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24C-2-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the existence of a separate civil suit does not, by itself, constitute a meritorious reason to stay an adjudication decision where the defendant has not availed itself of the statutory remedy to set aside the adjudication under s15 CIPAA; the defendant’s reliance on the civil suit and interlocutory steps is not a proper substitute for a s15 application and does not justify restraining enforcement. Consequently, the stay application was academic because enforcement was ordered in the related proceeding with payment to plaintiffs’ solicitors as stakeholder.
22 Sept 2021

ATM Development Sdn Bhd Pembinaan Melima (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24NCC-375-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-375-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Defendant held an enforceable adjudication decision and consequent High Court judgments which were neither stayed nor set aside, the debt was not bona fide disputed; issuance of the s466 statutory notice was not an abuse of process and the Fortuna injunction was refused, therefore the interlocutory applications were dismissed with costs.
19 Jul 2021

1. ) BA-24C-5-03/2021 INTEGRAL ACRES SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 672818-M) 2. ) BA-24C-7-03/2021 BCEG INTERNATIONAL (M) SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 96600729-U) 3. ) BA-24C-10-04/2021 INTEGRAL ACRES SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 672818-M) 1. ) BCEG INTERNATIONAL (M)

Citation

BA-24C-5-03/2021, BA-24C-7-03/2021 & BA-24C-10-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-5-03/2021, BA-24C-7-03/2021 & BA-24C-10-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide unpaid certified works and to award interest thereon, but exceeded jurisdiction under CIPAA by adjudicating Loss (EOT) and costs relating to BCEG's disputes with subcontractors (these are not "payment" under s4 and no written extension under s27(2) existed); the adjudicator also lacked power to award costs/fees of the previous adjudication after the prior adjudicator resigned; the court refused to set aside the valid parts and granted partial enforcement of the adjudication (specified sums and costs of this adjudication) and dismissed…
16 Mar 2021

ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-252-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-252-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Stay application dismissed: ASM failed to demonstrate clear and unequivocal errors in the adjudication decision that would 'prick the conscience' of the court; arbitration pending and ASM's counterclaim did not alone justify a stay; EP's financial position showed sufficient ability to repay any adjudicated sum; clause 25.4(d) PAM is void under CIPAA s.35 and cannot justify withholding payment.
22 Feb 2021

Jagdesh Singh for the Respondent [Messrs Mohana Krishnan] LAIN-LAIN Kelvin Ng Chun Yee and Eric Chan for the Petitioner [Messrs Vin Isaac & Lee]

Citation

COMPANIES WINDING UP NO. WA-28NCC-1364-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

COMPANIES WINDING UP NO. WA-28NCC-1364-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because the civil suit involves the same subject matter as the adjudication (thus engaging CIPAA s13(c)), there are six opposing bona fide creditors whose aggregate claims far exceed the petitioner's claim, and on that basis the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the winding up petition.
8 Jan 2021

1. ) IT MAX ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) LUCKSOON METAL WORKS SDN BHD 1. ) PROPEL SYNERGY 2. ) PROPEL SYNERGY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-158-09/2019 & WA-24C-160-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-158-09/2019 & WA-24C-160-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs satisfied the statutory conditions of s.30 CIPAA and the adjudication decisions remain valid because the prior setting-aside challenges were determined and not appealed; consequently the principal, having failed to serve the s.30(2) notice or prove payment and with sums due, is obligated to make direct payment to the plaintiffs and the originating summonses are allowed.