Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SQA BUILDERS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LUXOR HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. adjudication decisions are influenced by the procedural adherence to the payment response. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. jurisdictional challenges must address the prior procedural responses explicitly. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. claimants must assert all relevant claims and defenses in accordance with rules of adjudication. (Para 11 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. scope of adjudicator's jurisdiction under cipaa. (Para 15 , 27 , 30) |
| 5. natural justice in adjudication. (Para 32) |
[1] These two applications by way of two Originating Summons is with respect to an application to enforce an adjudication decision and the other filed subsequently is for setting aside and stay of the adjudication decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA). The Court directed both applications to be heard together as one is the flip side of the other and the same issue would straddle and settle both applications.
[2] The issue that calls for determination is not new and has been canvassed before the Courts until the Court of Appeal. It is this issue: does the Adjudicator have jurisdiction to hear a defence raised for the first time in the Adjudication Response when there was no Pay
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
