The court clarified that in adjudication under CIPAA, judicial review is limited to procedural errors, not merits, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Lim Chong Fong J:

Introduction

[1] These are related applications to set aside, enforce and stay an adjudication decision made pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 which are a sequel to my decision in Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Spring Energy Sdn Bhd (and Another Originating Summons), [2020] 7 AMR 494 and Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Spring Energy Sdn Bhd , [2020] 7 AMR 147.

[2] The plaintiff in Originating Summons No WA-24C-165-07/2020 ("OS 1") as well as No WA-24C-164-07/2020 ("OS 2") and defendant in Originating Summons No WA-24C-130-06/2020 ("OS 3") is a private limited company involved in the construction business. It is a subsidiary of Maju Holdings which holds a 33 years' concession to manage Maju Expressway which is a protocol expressway which connects Putrajaya, Cyberjaya and KLIA to Kuala Lumpur.

[3] The defendant in OS 1 as well as OS 2 and plaintiff in OS 3 is also a private limited company involved in civil engineering construction business too.

[4] For easy reference, the parties will hereafter be referred as MHSB and SESB respectively.

Background And Preliminary

[5] By a letter of acceptance dated 25 October 2016, a subcontract agreement dated 16 June 2017 and a supplementary agreement dated 21 June 2017 (collectively "Contract"), the MHSB appointed SESB as its subcontractor to execute the project known as "Site Clearances, Earthworks and Geotechnical Works (WP200), Drainage Works and Vehicular Box Culverts (WP300) and Reinforced Soil Wall (WP400) for Proposed Lebuhraya Putrajaya to KLIA (MEX ll) - Commencing from Putrajaya Interchange and Terminating at KLIA" ("Project").

[6] In the course of the execution of the project, SESB claimed that MHSB in breach of the contract failed, refused or neglected to pay SESB interim payment certificates nos 30 and 31 amounting to RM5,252,803.18.

[7] Consequently, SESB commenced adjudication proceedings under the CIPAA against MHSB.

[8] The director of the Asian International Arbitration Centre appointed Dr Stephen Baptist ("Adjudicator") to determine and decide the disputes between the parties on the non-payment of the aforementioned interim payment certificates.

[9] After having considered the submissions made by the parties comprising of SESB's adjudication claim, MHSB's adjudication response and SESB's adjudication reply (collectively "Adjudication Submissions"), the Adjudicator on 7 November 2019 delivered his adjudication decision ("Decision") in favour of SESB as particularly set out in para 17.0 (a) to (o) therein.

[10] In view of MHSB's failure to pay SESB as ordered in the Decision, SESB therefore on 19 June 2020 instituted OS 3 against MHSB.

[11] The affidavits which were filed for purposes of OS 3 are as follows:

(i) SESB's affidavit in support affirmed by Kwan Hon Ming dated 19 June 2020;

(ii) MHSB's affidavit in reply affirmed by Wan Meow Kwan dated 24 July 2020; and

(iii) SESB's affidavit in reply affirmed by Kwan Hon Ming dated 18 August 2020.

[12] MHSB in retaliation on 24 July 2020 instituted OS 1 against SESB.

[13] The affidavits which were filed for purposes of OS 1 are as follows:

(i) MHSB's affidavit in support affirmed by Wan Meow Kwan dated 24 July 2020;

(ii) SESB's affidavit in reply affirmed by Kwan Hon Ming dated 18 August 2020; and

(iii) MHSB's affidavit in reply affirmed by Wan Meow Kwan dated 1 September 2020.

[14] Additionally, MHSB also on 24 July 2020 instituted OS 2.

[15] The affidavits which were filed for purposes of OS 2 are as follows:

(i) MHSB's affidavit in support affirmed by Wan Meow Kwan dated 24 July 2020;

(ii) SESB's affidavit in reply affirmed by Kwan Hon Ming dated 18 August 2020; and

(iii) MHSB's affidavit in reply affirmed by Wan Meow Kwan dated 1 September 2020.

[16] All OS 1, OS 2 and OS 3 were fixed before me for hearing on 8 February 2021. The parties consented to have OS 1 and OS 3 heard together in advance followed by OS 2 depending on the outcome of OS 1 and OS 3. Moreover the parties consented that if OS 1 is