Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of adjudication decision

Legal area

Court

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.
1 Jul 2025

GAME ON FUN PARK (SOUTHERN) SDN BHD BOND M&E SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 1 in OS 3 was procedurally defective for combining a stay and setting aside application contrary to mandatory requirements of the Rules of Court (Order 69A); on the merits the adjudicator had considered the parties' submissions and evidence, did not commit a breach of natural justice or make clear errors warranting setting aside, the stay threshold under s.16 CIPAA was not met, and therefore the stay and setting aside applications were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforced under s.28 CIPAA.
19 May 2025

FORTUNE FACADE TREATMENT SDN BHD 1. ) PUNG TIONG GEE 2. ) Pung Tiong Cheng

Citation

WA-24C-159-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-159-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the adjudicator's imposition of an automatic bar on FFT's participation for non-payment of the ASD, and failure to address FFT's application to refile or supplement its adjudication response and interrogatories, breached natural justice and was contrary to CIPAA and AIAC rules; there was a real possibility a different outcome would have resulted had FFT been allowed to fully participate. The court also found prima facie that aspects of the 2nd Legal Claim were precluded by the earlier settlement (res judicata). Accordingly the court granted relief in OS 159 and set aside t…
8 Oct 2024

MN PERMAI NETCOM SDN BHD SMCC MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-47-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-47-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Adjudicator excluded and disregarded SMCC's set offs and counterclaims presented in the Adjudication Response, thereby denying SMCC procedural fairness; this denial of natural justice satisfies section 15(b) CIPAA and requires the Amended Adjudication Decision dated 5.3.2024 to be set aside.
15 Mar 2024

WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD ENGENIOUS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-184-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-184-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Adjudicator addressed the contested issues, did consider Progress Report No.22, the Certificate of Taking Over, and the set-off/back-charges, and did not commit clear and unequivocal error; challenges to the Adjudicator's findings were merits issues unsuitable for a stay; ESSB was found to be a going concern; accordingly the stay application was dismissed and enforcement of the Adjudication Decision was allowed with costs.
15 Mar 2024

ENGENIOUS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-205-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-205-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed and the enforcement application allowed because the court found the adjudicator had considered the relevant evidence and asked the right questions, there were no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay under section 16 CIPAA, and the respondent (ESSB) is a going concern so the AD Sum is payable; accordingly OS184 dismissed with costs and OS205 allowed with costs.
17 Jan 2024

Green Field Engineering Sdn Bhd Nobility Acclaim Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-24C-67-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-67-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the application for a stay of execution under s16(1)(b) CIPAA 2012 because the existence of parallel litigation alone is insufficient; the applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances such as proven insolvency or impecuniosity; respondent demonstrated going concern and contractual income sufficient to meet the modest adjudication sum (RM314,346.44); accordingly the stay was denied and the originating summons dismissed.
27 Oct 2023

MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-14-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-14-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed: the appeal would not be rendered nugatory because the matter could be reheard or directed by the Court of Appeal; the alleged jurisdictional error concerned interpretation of a settlement agreement and is for arbitration or is not a jurisdictional error; there was no evidence of imminent liquidation or asset dissipation and there was prima facie financial support and a letter of comfort from the holding company; prior non‑compliance with a conditional stay amounted to abuse of process. No special circumstances existed to justify a stay.
27 Sept 2023

GAMMERLITE SDN BHD JAMBATAN KEDUA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-112-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-112-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court enforced the Adjudication Decision under s.28 CIPAA because the statutory prerequisites were met (adjudicator rendered decision in claimant's favour, non-payment by due date, and no extant set-aside or final arbitration/court decision). The court nonetheless exercised its s.16 discretion to grant a conditional stay in the interest of justice because credible financial evidence showed a real risk Gammerlite could not repay the Adjudicated Sum; the conditional stay required the Adjudicated Sum (RM8,137,527.93) to be placed in an interest-bearing stakeholder account held by Gammerlite'…
27 Sept 2023

JAMBATAN KEDUA SDN BHD GAMMERLITE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-87-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-87-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that all statutory requirements for enforcement under s28 CIPAA were met and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision. Independently, the court exercised its discretion under s16 CIPAA to grant a conditional stay in the interest of justice because Gammerlite’s financial statements and CCM records demonstrated a precarious financial position creating a real risk it could not repay the adjudicated sum; accordingly the court ordered the adjudicated amount (as specified) to be placed in an interest‑bearing stakeholder account held by Gammerlite’s solicitors pending final a…