The court emphasized that non-compliance with certain procedural aspects of adjudication does not invalidate the decision where overall compliance with statutory requirements exists.

[1] There were three applications that were heard together by consent of the parties and for good reason. The claimant in an Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA") had obtained an Adjudication Decision in its favour and it applied for the Decision to be enforced in this Court under s 28 of the CIPAA.

[2] After being served with the Originating Summons to enforce the Adjudication Decision, the respondent in the Adjudication decided to file its Originating Summons to set aside the Adjudication Decision in the Ipoh High Court with an application within the OS for Stay of the Adjudication Decision.

[3] The respondent then took out an application to transfer the present proceeding to the Ipoh High Court which was duly dismissed by this Court. Meanwhile there was an application by the claimant to transfer the proceedings there to this Court which was duly granted

[4] Learned counsel for the claimant argued that it was a case where the respondent was trying to buy time with respect to the hearing of the Enforcement Application that had constrained the respondent to seek to apply for the Enforcement OS to be heard in the Ipoh High Court and its action to object to the transfer of the Setting Aside and Stay Application to be heard by this Court.

[5] It is axiomatic as required by the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 for an advocate and solicitor to conduct hearings with a view to save costs and time and to avoid duplication especially when the issues in the OS for Setting Aside and Stay of the Adjudication Decision would have an impact on and indeed impinge on the Enforcement Application. Rule 12 of the said Rules reads as follows:

"Advocate and solicitor not to conduct civil case intended to delay proceedings etc.

An advocate and solicitor shall not conduct a civil case or make a defence which is intended merely to delay proceedings or to harass or injure the opposite party or to work oppression or wrong."

[Emphasis Added]

[6] Thankfully though not without some resistance, both applications in the two Originating Summonses finally landed in the same Court for hearing together.

[7] The key issue in the Setting Aside Application and Stay Application is that the Adjudication Decision is defective and unenforceable for non-compliance with s 12(5) of the CIPAA in that it did not state the time of payment of the Adjudicated Sum.

Project

[8] By way of a Letter of Award dated 15 October 2015 ("LOA"), Empire Multiple Sdn Bhd ("Empire") appointed Pasukhas Sdn Bhd ("Pasukhas") as the main contractor for the construction and completion of a project known as "Apartment Housing Scheme". The Project included:

1) Apartment Block A (14 Storeys): (i) 13 Storeys (130 Units) Apartment (ii) One-Storey Carpark (iii) 1 Unit Electrical Sub-Station;

2) Apartment Block B (14 Storeys): (i) 13 Storeys (130 Units) Apartment (ii) One-Storey Carpark;

3) One-Storey Club House and Swimming Pool; and

4) Guard House.

[9] The Project was on Lots 208397, 69040, 69041, 69042 and 69043, Taman Bintang, Bandaraya Ipoh, Mukim Hulu Kinta, Daerah Kinta, Perak Darul Ridzuan For Messrs Empire Multiple Sdn Bhd" for a contract sum of RM25,080,000.00.

[10] The applicable Standard Form of Contracts is the PAM Contract 2006 (Without Quantities - 2006 Edition) ("PAM Contract").

Proceedings In Adjudication

[11] The claimant, Pasukhas Sdn Bhd ("Pasukhas") had served its Payment Claim on the respondent Empire Multiple Sdn Bhd ("Empire") for work done with respect to a construction contract for unpaid certified sums in Payment Certificates Nos 18 to 22. There was no Payment Response served by the respondent.

[12] T