ROSHA DYNAMIC SDN BHD vs MOHD SALEHHODIN SABIYEE & ORS AND OTHER CASES

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 MarsdenLR 826

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
ROSHA DYNAMIC SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MOHD SALEHHODIN SABIYEE & ORS AND OTHER CASES – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Abdul Rahim Ali ,Respondent Advocate: Abdullah Az-Zubayr Awaluddin

Judgement Key Points

No, the court did not grant an unconditional stay of the adjudication decision pending the disposal of a trial.

The court granted an interim stay of enforcement under s 16(1)(a) CIPAA solely because Rosha filed the Setting Aside OS, pending its disposal (!) (!) .
No suit or trial was filed or pending regarding the works, so s 16(1)(b) CIPAA (for matters pending final determination by court or arbitration) did not apply (!) .
Parties consented to hear all OS together; court decided Setting Aside OS first, then Enforcement OS, causing the interim stay to lapse upon oral decision (!) (!) (!) .
Rosha's Stay OS sought enforcement stay pending Setting Aside OS disposal, but it was not unconditional or extended to any trial (!) .
Setting Aside OS dismissed and Enforcement OS allowed, with no further stay (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

Wong Kian Kheong J:

(Three Originating Summonses)

A. Introduction

[1] This judgment concerns the following three originating summonses (OS):

(1) OS no BA-64-81-07/2020 (Setting Aside OS) has been filed by Rosha Dynamic Sdn Bhd (Rosha) against three partners of a firm, "Maju Bena Enterprise" (Maju) to set aside an adjudication decision made on 22 January 2020 (AD) by an adjudicator, Ir Mark Seah Hock Nam (Adjudicator);
(2) the three partners of Maju have filed OS no BA-24C-91-09/2020 for leave of court to enforce the AD against Rosha (Enforcement OS); and
(3) Rosha has filed OS no BA-24C-95-10/2020 against the three partners of Maju to stay the enforcement of the AD pending the disposal of the Setting Aside OS (Stay OS).

For the sake of brevity, in this judgment I shall refer to the three partners of Maju collectively as "Maju".

B. Background

[2] Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) had appointed Rosha as a main contractor to build an electrical substation (Project).

[3] By way of a "Letter of Award" dated 27 July 2018 (LA), Rosha had appointed Maju to do "ground improvement works" in the Project (Works). The LA provided as follows, among others:

(1) Appendix B to the LA stated the rates for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 MarsdenLR 826

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAMROSHA DYNAMIC SDN BHD – AppellantVersusMOHD SALEHHODIN SABIYEE & ORS AND OTHER CASES – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
ROSHA DYNAMIC SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MOHD SALEHHODIN SABIYEE & ORS AND OTHER CASES – Respondent