Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
UDA HOLDINGS BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
BISRAYA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cipaa introduces adjudication for construction disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. both cases raised similar legal issues under cipaa. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. procedure for combined hearings and submissions. (Para 5) |
| 4. details regarding case filings and construction contracts. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. disputes involved non-payment and certification issues. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. jurisdictional challenges raised against the adjudicator. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. issues concerning jurisdiction in adjudication. (Para 18 , 19 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. context of disputes in both cases. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. court's position on jurisdiction and interim injunctions. (Para 26 , 27 , 29 , 31) |
| 10. disputes over whether cipaa applies retrospectively. (Para 32 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. cipaa's retrospective application and purpose. (Para 40 , 54 , 172) |
| 12. the conclusion of the court and dismissal of the summonses. (Para 72) |
[1] The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (Act 746) (CIPAA) is a much awaited piece of legislation. For years, the idea of establishing such a regime was bandied around both in the construction industry and the legal profession that serves that industry. It would be fair to say that u
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
