An adjudication decision is binding and enforceable unless set aside for specific grounds, reinforcing the principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings.

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] By consent of the parties, three applications were heard together. These are-

(a) the application by Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd ('Econpile') in the Amended Originating Summons ('O.S.') No. WA-24C-113- 07/2019, which was first dated 1 July 2019 and thereafter re-dated as 17 September 2019, to enforce the Adjudication Decision made by the learned Adjudicator, Mr Rajendra Navaratnam on 21 June 2019 and the Supplementary Decision dated 7 August 2019 (collectively referred to as the 'said Adjudication Decision') pursuant to s 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746] ('CIPAA') and O 69A, r 5 of the Rules of 2012 ('RoC 2012') and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court ('Enforcement Application');

(b) the application by ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd ('ASM') in O.S. No. WA-24C-118-07/2019 for the said Adjudication Decision to be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration where the provisions referred to in the intitulement are s 16 CIPAA, O 7 rr 2 and 3, and O 69A, r 4 RoC 2012 ('Stay Application'); and

(c) ASM's application in O.S. No. WA-24C-173-09/2019 to set aside the said Adjudication Decision pursuant to s 15(b), (c) and (d) CIPAA and/ or O 7, O 28 and O 92, r 4 RoC 2012 and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court ('Setting Aside Application').

[2] Having heard oral submissions by learned counsels Mr Edwin Lim representing ASM and Mr Lam Wai Loon on behalf of Econpile, and having read the O.S., Affidavits and written submissions filed, I had dismissed ASM's Setting Aside Application and Stay Application, and allowed Econpile's Enforcement Application. Costs of RM7,500.00 were ordered to be paid to Econpile for each O.S., subject to allocator.

[3] ASM has since appealed against my decision in respect of all the said applications. I now give my full grounds for arriving at the conclusion as I did.

Background Facts

[4] By way of a Letter of Award dated 26 September 2016 ('LoA'; exhibit "B-1" in ASM's Affidavit In Support ('AIS') affirmed by its Chief Executive Director on 12 September 2019, encl 2), ASM engaged Econpile as its contractor to undertake Work Package 1: Diaphragm Wall, Contiguous Bored Pile, Earthworks, Piling Works And Basement Structure Works (Basement 2 to LG1) ('said Works') for a project known as "Cadangan Pembangunan Bercampur 69 Tingkat Yang Mengandungi 7 Blok Pangsapuri Servis (4214 Unit), iaitu: Blok A - 58 Tingkat (678 Unit), Blok B -58 Tingkat (618 Unit), Blok C - 58 Tingkat (560 Unit), Blok D -58 Tingkat (678 Unit), Blok E - 58 Tingkat (618 Unit), Blok G - 58 Tingkat (502 Unit), 8 Tingkat Podium Tempat Letak Kereta, 7 Tingkat Ruang Perniagaan (Aras 1-7), 1 Tingkat Aras Kemudahan (Aras 9), 4 Tingkat Tempat Letak Kereta (Aras LG1, Basement 2 & Basement 1) Di Atas Lot 36190, Mukim Petaling Kuala Lumpur' ('Project') for an original contract sum of RM280 million ('said Contract').

[5] The said Contract incorporated the Agreement and Conditions of PAM Contract 2006 (With Quantities), with modifications and amendments ('PAM Contract'; exhibit "B-16", encl 2).

[6] According to cl 2 LoA, the contract period was for 15 months commencing on 8 October 2016 and with a completion date of 7 January 2018. The parties had then agreed to revise the completion period to 18 months and 7 April 2018 as the revised completion date (see Econpile's letter dated 7 August 2017 to ASM in exhibit "B-2", encl 2).

[7] ASM's Executive Director was the Superintending Officer ('S.O.') for the Project.

[8] Econpile proceeded to perform the said Works and 24 Progress Claims were issued.

[9] Under the said Contract, the S.O. was obliged to certify the Progress Claims within 30 days from the date of submission of the Progress Claim, and ASM was obliged to make payment on a Payment Certificate within 60 days from the date of issuance of the Interim Payment Certificate ('IPC').

[10] However, ASM issued only 15 IPCs whilst Progress Claims No 16 to No 24 were not certified by the