Section 30 of CIPAA allows for direct payment from a principal when the party against whom adjudication is decided fails to pay, without requiring a contractual relationship.

Introduction And Parties

[1] D2 had appointed D1 as the main contractor for a project "Cadangan Kerja Tanah Dan Kerja Infrastruktur Utama Fasa 7, Laman 1 Bernama Jaya, Selangor (project)" Pursuant to a letter of award (LA) dated 18 February 2014 D1 had in turn appointed Plaintiff to carry out a part of the work in the project namely water reticulation and sewerline work (work) for a contract sum of RM950,000.00.

[2] Plaintiff filed 4 applications to enforce 4 adjudication decisions arising from D1's failure to pay on 4 progress claims submitted for the work.

[3] It was agreed by all parties that the decision in one case will bind the other cases. The Court then directed parties to proceed on Originating Summons 24C-18-12/2015 as this was the first case in the sequence.

Originating Summons 24C-18-12/2015

[4] Pursuant to Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) Plaintiff had served a payment claim on D1 to which there was no payment response. By way of a notice of adjudication Plaintiff then sought reliefs which included the payment of a sum due under its progress claim. By adjudication decision dated 13 April 2015 ("TMK-4") Plaintiff was awarded an adjudicated sum. It is not disputed D1 had not filed any adjudication response and was not present at the adjudication proceedings and that D2 is not a party to the adjudication.

(a) Enclosure (1) - Plaintiff's Application To Enforce Against D1 And For D2 To Pay Should D1 Fail To Pay"

[5] In enclosure (1) Plaintiff seeks to enforce the adjudication decision against D1 and as against D2 an order that D2 pays the adjudicated sum to Plaintiff in the event D1 fails and/or neglects to pay to Plaintiff.

[6] The Court had allowed Plaintiff's application against D1 and D2. D2 has appealed against that decision. D1 has not filed any appeal. Accordingly this grounds will only focus on Plaintiff's claim against D2.

(i) Plaintiff's affidavit in support in enclosure (2)

[7] In paragraph 2 of its enclosure (2), Plaintiff states it had written to D2 on 8 May 2015 for D2 to make direct payment to it ("TMK-6"). The relevant parts of the letter stated as follows-

"Di atas kegagalan Eminent Ventures Sdn Bhd mematuhi tempoh bayaran yang telah ditetapkan oleh Adjudikator, Akta CIPAA secara undang undang membenarkan kami untuk meneruskan tuntutan bayaran sepertimana keputusan Adjudikasi di atas kepada pihak Responden (Eminent Ventures Sdn Bhd) dan juga secara serentak terus kepada Prinsipal iaitu pihak Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor melalui s 30 dan s 31 Akta tersebut.

Selaras dengan ss 31(1) dan 30 (1) Akta CIPAA 2012 kami dengan ini membuat tuntutan secara bertulis kepada tuan untuk mendapatkan bayaran seperti di atas. Tertakluk kepada s 30(2) tuan seharusnya mengemukakan notis bertulis kepada Eminent Ventures Sdn Bhd untuk menunjukkan bukti pembayaran amaun di atas jika bayaran tidak dibuat dalam tempoh 10 hari bekerja maka bayaran terus akan dibuat olehpihak tuan kepada kami.

Tertakluk kepada s 30(3) jika sekiranya tiada bukti bayaran dikemukakan oleh Eminent Ventures Sdn Bhd selepas 10 hari bekerja dari tarikh penerimaan notis tuan di atas maka tuan hendaklah membuat bayaran terhadap amaun di atas kepada kami.".

[8] Plaintiff then goes to state D2 had by letter dated 27 May 2015 to D1 ("TMK-7") asked that D1 submit proof of payment to Plaintiff within 10 working days of D2's letter. Paragraph 3 of the letter states-

"Sekiranya PKNS tidak menerima sebarang bukti pembayaran yang telah dibuat dalam tempoh sepuluh (10) hari tersebut maka pihak PKNS akan membuat bayaran terus kepada kontraktor Murni Environmen