Table of Content
1. overview of the adjudication process and related disputes. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. issues regarding impartiality and perceived bias. (Para 2)

[1] The plaintiff company (plaintiff) has filed this originating summons (This OS) against the defendant company (defendant) to set aside an adjudication decision made on 5 April 2019 (AD) by the adjudicator, Mr Aniz Ahmad Amirudin (Adjudicator).

B. Issues

[2] This OS raises the following five questions:

(1) in view of s 15(a) to (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), can the court set aside the AD under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 (RC), the courts inherent jurisdiction and/or inherent power?;

(2) whether the Adjudicator had acted independently and/or impartially under s 15(c) CIPAA when:

(a) the Adjudicator had accepted the defendants bare averment that the plaintiffs failure to schedule the work of subcontractors had caused the defendants non-completion of the works;

(b) the Adjudicator had decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to deduct "agreed back charges" (Back Charges) despite the fact that the plaintiff had produced an invoice and two delivery receipts to support the Back Cha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document