SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 2359

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CRCC MALAYSIA BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
M101 ENTITY SDN BHD – Respondent
[Originating Summons Nos: WA-24C-89-05/2020 WA-24C-135-06/2020 & WA-24C-136-06/2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Sanjay Mohan,Adam Lee Leong Soon,Kooy Wei Nee ,Respondent Advocate: Rajendra Navaratnam,Allen Cheng Peng Han,Brandon Shen Shi Han

The court upheld the enforcement of an adjudication decision, ruling that the adjudicator did not breach natural justice and stayed within jurisdiction while addressing the parties' submissions.

Headnote:(A) Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 – Sections 15(b) and (d), 16, and 28 – Adjudication decision enforcement – Applications concerning enforcement, setting aside, and stay applications addressed together – Setting Aside Application dismissed; Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed with costs. (Paras 2, 67)

(B) Natural justice – Adjudicator's obligation to hear both parties – M101 contended breach of natural justice by alleging the Adjudicator framed an issue without allowing submissions – Court found proper procedures were followed and issues adequately ventilated. (Paras 35-41)

(C) Jurisdiction of Adjudicator – M101 claimed the Adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction in framing an issue – Court found all pertinent issues were duly considered within the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction. (Paras 47-52)

Facts of the case: CRCC entered a contract with M101 for project works. Following non-payment issues, adjudication proceedings were initiated by CRCC. M101's applications centered on setting aside the adjudication decision due to alleged natural justice breaches.

Findings of Court: Enforcement of the adjudication decision granted due to established non-payment; no clear errors warranting a stay were found.

Issues: 1) Did the Adjudicator breach natural justice by framing issues? 2) Did the Adjudicator exceed jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction or breach natural justice and that all parties were given fair opportunity to address claims and defenses. (Para 75)

Result: Setting Aside and Stay Applications dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.

JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] As is the norm, three applications were heard together before this Court with the agreement of the parties, namely:-

(a) the application by CRCC Malaysia Berhad ('CRCC') pursuant to s 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746] ('CIPAA 2012'); O 69A, r 5 of the Rules of 2012 ('RoC 2012'); O 92, r 4 RoC 2012 and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court in OS No WA-24C-89-05/2020 ('Enforcement Application') to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 25 March 2020 ('AD') delivered by the learned Adjudicator, Mr Ivan YF Loo ('Adjudicator');

(b) the application by M101 Entity Sdn Bhd ('M101') pursuant to s 15 (b) and (d) CIPAA 2012 and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court in OS No WA-24C-135-06/2020 ('Setting Aside Application') to set aside the AD in its entirety or alternatively, part of the AD which is in breach of natural justice; and

(c) the application by M101 pursuant to s 16 CIPAA 2012 and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court in OS No WA-24C-136-06/2020 ('Stay Application') to stay the AD.

[2] The Court, having considered the above mentioned applications together with the affidavit evidence and written submissions filed and the oral submissions by Mr Rajendra Navaratnam, who appeared for M101, and Mr Sanjay Mohan for CRCC, had dismissed the Setting Aside Application with costs of RM10,000.00 and the Stay Application with costs of RM5,000.00, and allowed the Enforcement Application with costs of RM5,000.00. All orders as to costs were made subject to the payment of the allocatur fees.

[3] The full grounds for the said decision are set out in the succeeding paras of this judgment.

The Salient Facts

[4] By way of a Letter of Award dated 28 November 2017 ('LoA'), M101 confirmed the award to CRCC as the contractor for the sub-structure and super-structure works ('Works') for the project known as:

Cadangan Pembangunan 2 Blok Perdagangan Bercampur 81 Dan 80 Tingkat Serta Sebuah Roda Pemerhati'Ferris Wheel'Yang Mengandungi:

(a) Menara 1 Yang Terdiri Daripada:

(i) 1 Tingkat Kemudahan (Di Aras 78),

(ii) 25 Tingkat Suit Pejabat (Di Aras 53 Hingga 77),

(iii) 1 Tingkat Breaktank dan Ruang M&E (Di Aras 52A),

(iv) 5 Tingkat Perniagaan Dan Suit Pejabat (Di Aras 48 Hingga 52),

(v) 1 Tingkat Ruang Kemudahan (Di Aras 47),

(vi) 34 Tingkat Suit Pejabat (Di Aras 13 Hingga 46),

(b) Menara 2 yang Terdiri Daripada:

(i) 1 Tingkat Kemudahan (Di Aras 77),

(ii) 24 Tingkat Suit Pejabat (Di Aras 53 Hingga 76),

(iii) 1 Tingkat Breaktank dan Ruang M&E (Di Aras 52A),

(iv) 5 Tingkat Perniagaan Dan Suit Pejabat (Di Aras 48 Hingga 52),

(v) 1 Tingkat Ruang Kemudahan (Di Aras 47),

(vi) 34 Tingkat Suit Pejabat (Di Aras 13 Hingga 46),

(c) Sebuah Roda Pemerhati'Ferris Wheel'Di Aras 53), Termasuk 14 Tingkat Podium Yang Mengandungi 2 Tingkat Ruang Niaga (Di Aras Tanah dan Mezanin) dan 12 Tingkat Tempat Letak Kereta (Di Aras 1 Hingga 12) Dengan 1 Tingkat Basemen, Di Atas Lot 1713 (Lot Lama 412), Seksyen 41, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kampung Bharu, Kuala Lumpur untuk Tetuan M101 Entity Sdn Bhd ('Project'),

for the estimated Contract Sum of RM879,638,084.00. CRCC accepted the LoA on 7 December 2017.

[5] Clause 5.6 of the LoA provides that the Conditions of Contract ('CoC') shall be based on the Agreement And Conditions Of PAM Contract 2006 (With Quantities) whilst cl 6 states that the LoA, Articles of Agreement, CoC, Drawings, Specifications and Schedule of Rate shall be read and construed as a binding contract between the parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'Contract').

[6] Between the period from 25 January 2018 to 30 April 2019, CRCC had submitted 16 Progress Claims to M101. Veritas Architects Sdn Bhd ('Architect') had issued Interim Certificates of Payment ('IC') Nos 1 to 15 for the total sum of RM31,261,508.51 between the period from 6 February 2018 until 18 April 2019.

[7] M101 claimed that it had made payments for the aforesaid IC in the sum of RM5,514,760.20, including three direct


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top