JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] This is a case where the Plaintiff was the claimant in an adjudication proceeding and the learned Adjudicator, Mr Ramdas Tikamdas ('Adjudicator') in his decision dated 6 January 2023 ('AD'), had dismissed the Plaintiff's claim.

[2] Not surprisingly, the Plaintiff then applied to set aside the AD ('Setting Aside Application', encl 1). The provisions invoked by the Plaintiff were s 15(b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746] ('CIPAA') and O 69A, rr 2, 3 and 7 of the Rules of 2012 ('RC 2012').

[3] The Plaintiff also applied to stay the AD pending the determination of the Setting Aside Application pursuant to para 16(1)(a) CIPAA and O 69A, rr 2 and 4 RC 2012 ('Stay Application', encl 6). An Ad Interim Stay of the AD was granted by the Court after hearing brief oral submissions by the learned counsels who represented the parties. On a subsequent date, the learned counsels agreed with the Court that, in view of the wordings of prayer 1 in the Stay Application, there is no necessity for a hearing to be held. The Court accordingly granted the prayer for an order to stay the AD until disposal of the Setting