RA SURIA SDN BHD vs CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 367

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
RA SURIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Tee Chin Hian ,Respondent Advocate: Jaslyn Saw Wei Wen;

Table of Content
1. the applications under cipaa were heard together. (Para 1 , 2)
2. application to set aside an adjudication decision focuses on jurisdictional grounds. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. jurisdiction is limited to matters referred under cipaa. (Para 22 , 24)
4. enforcement application upheld due to statutory provisions. (Para 25 , 36 , 47)

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] These are my full grounds of judgment in respect of the following applications, which the parties had agreed to be heard together:

(a) the application by RA Suria Sdn Bhd ('RA Suria') pursuant to s 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746] ('CIPAA') and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the court in Originating Summons No WA-24C-107-05/2022 ('OS No 107') to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 17 April 2022 ('AD') by the learned Adjudicator, Mr Teh Phoay Keat ('Adjudicator') (encl 1; 'Setting Aside Application');

(b) the application by CEDY Third Contracting and Trading (M) Sdn Bhd ('CEDY') pursuant to s 28 of the CIPAA in OS No. WA- 24C-120-06/2022 ('OS No 120') to enforce the AD (encl 1; 'Enforcement Application'); and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 367

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURRA SURIA SDN BHD – AppellantVersusCEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD – Respondent

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
RA SURIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD – Respondent