Adjudicators have substantial discretion in resolving disputes under the CIPAA, and challenges based on jurisdiction or natural justice must be clear and substantial.

[1] This is another application that came before me to set aside the decision of the adjudicator under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA") after Harmony Teamwork Construction Sdn Bhd v. Vital Talent Sdn Bhd , [2017] 4 AMR 580.

[2] The Plaintiff is a private limited company and the employer of the project to carry out construction work known as "Cadangan Kerja Tambahan Ke Atas Bangunan Kilang Sediada Ann Joo Integrated Steel Sdn Bhd di atas Lot 1227 & 78 Dan Sebahagian Lot 1225 & 1236, Mukim 1, Kawasan Perindustrian Perai, Seberang Perai Tengah Pulau Pinang" ("Works").

[3] The Defendant is also a private limited company and is the contractor appointed by the Plaintiff to undertake the Works pursuant to a letter of award dated 18 February 2011 ("Letter of Award") together with the conditions of contract ("Conditions of Contract")(collectively known as "Contract") for the Contract sum of RM4,475,000.00.

[4] There were disputes and differences that arose between the parties in relation to the Contract and these disputes were referred to adjudication under the CIPAA before Chung Sheuan Seen ("Adjudicator"). The Plaintiff was the Respondent whilst the Defendant was the Claimant in the adjudication proceedings.

[5] The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the Adjudicators decision dated 23 March 2017 ("Decision") and applied to set it aside pursuant to s 15 of the CIPAA ("Application").

Preliminary

[6] The affidavits that were filed in relation to this Application are as follows:-

(i) Plaintiffs affidavit in support affirmed by Mabel Tio Mei Peng dated 21 April 2017;

(ii) Defendants affidavit in reply (1) affirmed by Lim Jia Jian dated 16 May 2017;

(iii) Plaintiffs affidavit in reply affirmed by Mabel Tio Mei Peng dated 1 June 2017;

(iv) Defendants affidavit in reply (2) affirmed by Lim Jia Jian dated 13 June 2017;

(v) Plaintiffs affidavit in reply (2) affirmed by Mabel Tio Mei Peng dated 21 June 2017.

[7] After having read the cause papers and written submissions filed by the parties, I heard oral arguments of counsel on 3 July 2017 and 3 August 2017. I thereafter adjourned the matter to deliberate on the arguments put forth.

[8] Accordingly, I now furnish below my decision together with the supporting grounds thereof.

Brief Facts

[9] The Defendant completed the Works pursuant to the Contract. The quantity surveyor engaged by the Plaintiff to carry out, inter alia, final measurement and valuation of the Works is JUBM Sdn Bhd ("JUBM").

[10] The disputes and differences that arose between them concerned the balance amount to be paid by the Plaintiff for the work done and completed by the Defendant.

[11] As the result, the Defendant issued and served a payment claim dated 14 October 2016 pursuant to s 5 of the CIPAA ("Payment Claim") amounting to RM795,387.42 upon the Plaintiff.

[12] The Plaintiff in response issued and served a payment response dated 31 October 2016 pursuant to s 6 of the CIPAA ("Payment Response") upon the Defendant.

[13] In consequence, the Defendant issued and served a notice of adjudication dated 8 November 2016 upon the Plaintiff pursuant to s 8 of the CIPAA.

[14] The Adjudicator was appointed by the director of the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration pursuant to s 21 of the CIPAA on 30 November 2016.

[15] Accordingly, the Defendant issued and served the adjudication claim dated 7 December 2016 pursuant to s 9 of the CIPAA ("Adjudication Claim") upon the Adjudicator and Plaintiff.

[16] The Plaintiff then issued and s