Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of adjudication

Legal area

Court

19 May 2025

1. ) PUNG TIONG GEE 2. ) PUNG TIONG CHENG FORTUNE FACADE TREATMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-181-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-181-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the adjudication decision because the adjudicator improperly imposed a direction effectively barring the respondent from fully participating for non-payment of the ASD contrary to CIPAA and the AIAC rules, thereby breaching natural justice; the adjudicator also failed to address the applicant's request to refile or supplement its response and to consider the res judicata defence, creating a real possibility of a different outcome if properly considered.
2 Aug 2024

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

Citation

WA-24C-163-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-163-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Payment Claim complied with CIPAA and the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction or breach natural justice; Samsung's stay application failed for non-compliance with Order 69A and lacked merit on substantive grounds; the AD contained no clear error warranting nullification; the court severed the previously paid back-charge sum RM8,046,404.58 from enforcement and ordered enforcement of the remaining AD amounts, including release of joint stakeholder funds accordingly.
29 Mar 2024

China Communications Construction Company (M) Sdn Bhd Jiangsu Zhongnan Construction Group (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-219-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-219-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice; the adjudicator considered the DPA, estoppel and relevant evidence and asked himself the right questions; no special circumstances were shown to warrant a stay pending setting aside and arbitration; accordingly the s16 stay application (OS 219) was dismissed with costs.
11 Dec 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-171-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-171-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the Payment Claim despite prior arbitration (relying on s37 CIPAA and federal authority), the Payment Claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA when read with accompanying correspondence, the adjudicator did not deny natural justice in exercising procedural powers under s25(a), and errors on merits do not constitute grounds to set aside under s15; accordingly OS170 (setting aside) was dismissed, OS171 (stay) dismissed, and enforcement under OS172 granted pursuant to s28 CIPAA.
23 Aug 2023

MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-53-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-53-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud on the balance of probabilities or to adduce admissible contemporaneous evidence to justify injunctive or declaratory relief to halt the adjudication; the alleged fraud was not advanced in the adjudication, statutory adjudication under CIPAA affords specific remedies (eg s15) post-decision, and absent clear lack of jurisdiction the court will not interfere pre-decision; accordingly the applications were dismissed and costs ordered against the plaintiff.
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.
9 Feb 2022

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

Citation

KA-24C-1-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24C-1-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted enforcement because there was a valid adjudication decision in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant had not applied to set it aside under section 15 CIPAA, a pending civil suit alone does not bar enforcement absent a set-aside or stay, and the High Court's discretion under section 28 should be exercised to enforce unpaid adjudicated sums while preserving the defendant's rights in the continuing civil proceedings.
29 Jul 2021

MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-204-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-204-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

At the material date (when defendant received the s.30(1) request) amounts were payable but a conditional stay of the adjudication and the subsequent facts (defendant notified contractor within a reasonable time, plaintiff consented to release of IPC 40 funds and the decision was stayed) prevented the plaintiff from obtaining direct payment; accordingly the s.30 remedy was not available and the application is dismissed with costs.
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.
16 Jul 2020

PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-42-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-42-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application in Enclosure 64 was withdrawn by B Cor Geotechnics with the consent of the parties after mediation; the court struck off the application on those lawful terms; because the order was made by consent it falls within s.68(1)(b) CJA and is not appealable to the Court of Appeal, therefore the appeal is misconceived.