The adjudicator's decision is enforceable unless set aside on narrow grounds; the claimant must prove status as an unpaid party under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Anand Ponnudurai J:

introduction

[1] The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "CIPAA 2012") came into force on 15 April 2014 and was enacted to inter-alia facilitate regular and timely payment, to provide a mechanism for speedy dispute resolution through adjudication, to provide remedies for the recovery of payment in the construction industry and to provide for connected and incidental matters.

[2] With the advent of adjudication proceedings, this then would inevitably lead to an adjudication decision by an appointed adjudicator. Once an adjudication decision is handed down, the unsuccessful party may apply to the High Court pursuant to s 15 CIPAA 2012 to set aside the said decision or apply to the High Court to stay the adjudication decision pursuant to s 16 CIPAA 2012.

[3] In addition, if the adjudication decision orders the payment of money and if the said awarded sum remains unpaid, the successful party may file an application pursuant to s 28 CIPAA 2012 to enforce the adjudication decision as if it is a judgment or Order of the High Court .

[4] The procedure to set aside under s 15 CIPAA 2012, an application to stay under s 16 CIPAA 2012, or to enforce under s 28 CIPAA 2012 are done by way of Originating Summons or by application as is governed by O 69A of the Rules of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "ROC 2012").

[5] In this case, the parties had a dispute over payment due from Jonah Bina Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "Jonah") which led to Proventus Bina Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "Proventus") initiating adjudication proceedings against Jonah.

[6] Pursuant to such adjudication proceedings, the learned Adjudicator had rendered a decision dated 1 April 2024 in favour of Proventus and ordered Jonah to pay Proventus the adjudicated sum of RM3,016,099.44 as well as interest and costs (hereinafter referred to as the "said adjudication decision").

[7] Since such payment was not made, Proventus commenced its application to enforce pursuant to s 28 CIPAA 2012 via Originating Summons No PA-24C-8-04/2024 (hereinafter referred to as "OS 8") wherein Proventus was the Plaintiff and Jonah was the Defendant.

[8] Not long thereafter, Jonah commenced proceedings the following month via Originating Summons No PA-24C-10-05/2024 (hereinafter referred to as "OS 10") applying to set aside the said adjudication decision pursuant to s 15(b) and (d) CIPAA 2012. Subsequently, within OS 10, Jonah then also files an application in encl 6 pursuant to s 16 CIPAA 2012 for the enforcement and execution of the entire adjudication decision to be staved pending the decision of a suit between parties that had been commenced by Jonah in 2024 via Suit No PA-22C-1-06/2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the writ action").

[9] Parties had thereafter agreed during a case management that all three matters be heard simultaneously ie OS 8 as well as encls 1 and 6 in OS 10. Parties had thereafter filed their respective written submissions and having read the same and after hearing learned Counsel, I decided as follows:

a. Jonah's application in encl 1 of OS 10 to set aside be dismissed;

b. Jonah's application in encl 6 of OS 10 to stay the adjudication decision be dismissed; and

c. consequently, allowed Proventus's application to enforce the