Adjudication decisions under CIPAA are enforceable except on limited statutory grounds.

[1] There are (4) Originating Summonses before the court and the learned counsel for Kining Exeton Sdn Bhd had compendiously summarised the particulars as follows:

(1) OS 173: Originating Summons by Kining Exeton Sdn Bhd ("KESB") to enforce the adjudication decision dated 23 March 2016 ("CIPAA Decision 1") as if it is a judgment or order of the High court pursuant to s 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA 2012");

(2) OS 174: Originating Summons by KESB to enforce the adjudication decision dated 24 November 2016 ("CIPAA Decision 2") as if it is a judgment of the High court pursuant to s 28 of the CIPAA 2012;

(3) OS 18: Originating Summons by Majlis Perbandaran Kuantan ("MPK") to set aside the CIPAA Decision 2 pursuant to s 15(1) (d) of the CIPAA 2012; and

(4) OS 23: Originating Summons by MPK to set aside the CIPAA Decision 1 pursuant to s 15(1)(d) of the CIPAA 2012.

[2] By consent of the parties, all the four Originating Summonses were heard together for if the applications for setting aside the CIPAA Decisions are dismissed then this court would correspondingly grant an order to enforce the same CIPAA Decisions.

[3] The parties shall be referred to as they were in the adjudication as the claimant and the respondent or as KESB and MPK respectively.

Project

[4] Pursuant to a contract in writing dated 8 August 2011 entered into between the KESB and MPK (Contract No MPK/J/A/W/T:03/2010 of 2011), KESB was appointed by MPK to construct and complete a Project known as "Cadangan Membina Kompleks Ibu Pejabat Majlis Perbandaran Kuantan (MPK) Di Atas Lot 29, Seksyen 30, Jalan Tanah Putih at Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur" ("Project") for a contract sum of RM56,973,413.12 upon the terms and conditions therein stated ("Contract"), CBP(1):pp 263-320.

[5] MPK was at all material time the employer of the Project.

Proceedings In The Two Adjudications

[6] The narration of what happened below in the two adjudications is culled from the submission of KESB.

CIPAA Decision 1

[7] KESB brought a claim vide adjudication reference: KLRCA/D/ADJ- 0173-2015 against MPK under the CIPAA 2012 for a sum, inter alia, the costs for variations and additional works amounting to RM7,518,877.58 ("CIPAA 1"), see CBP(1): pp 57-58.

[8] An adjudicator was appointed by the Director of the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for arbitration.

[9] The particulars of KESBs claim under CIPAA 1 and the amount later allowed by the adjudicator are particularised as follows, see CBP(1): pp 71-98:

[10] CIPAA 1 proceeded without a need for an oral hearing. During the course of the proceedings the adjudicator had sought written clarification from the parties in respect of the submissions made by the parties.

[11] On 23 March 2016, after considering the relevant facts, documents and contentions, the adjudicator delivered his findings on the claim brought by KESB and decided amongst others, see CBP(1): p 55, that:

"The MPK is to pay KESB the sum of RM1,869,664.84 as variations pursuant to cl 24.0 [Variations] of the Contract within 10 working days after receiving the Adjudication Decision; That MPK is to pay the KESB interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the sum of RM1,869,664.84 from the date of the Adjudication Decision until full realisation; and

That MPK is to bear the costs of the adjudication Proceedings amounting to RM38,584.00 and that MPK is to settle the sum of RM38,540.00 within 10 working days after receiving the adjudication Decision."

[12] On 11 April 2016, KESB had through its solicitors, demanded from MPK to pay for the sum awarded in the said the CIPAA Decision 1.