The Court enforces Adjudication Decisions under CIPAA if validly issued, highlighting the binding nature of such decisions.

[1] The plaintiff had applied by way of an Originating Summons for enforcement of two Adjudication Decisions dated 15 June 2017 and 4 August 2017 as if they are Judgments or Orders of the High Court. The Originating Summons dated 2 October 2017 is supported by an Affidavit in Support affirmed by one Tan Eng Han on 26 September 2017.

[2] The plaintiff was the claimant in the two Adjudications under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA").

[3] The Originating Summons and Affidavit in Support had been duly served on the defendant who was the respondent in the Adjudication. An Affidavit of Service had been duly filed. The Originating Summons and the Affidavit in Support were served on the defendant at its registered address at 23-24, first and second floors, Jalan Seri Kuantan 80, Kuantan Star? City, 25200 Kuantan, Pahang by way of courier service on 6 October 2017 and by AR Registered Post on 17 October 2017; the latter duly acknowledged with the rubber stamp of the defendant and the Signature of one Mohd Nazari (KP: 770129-03-5679) exhibited as "JA-2" in the Affidavit of Service. The defendant was not present for case management on 13 October 2017 and was also absent on 20 November 2017 when the Court heard the application.

[4] Nevertheless the Court would consider if the requirements of the CIPAA have been satisfied for the purpose of enforcement of the two Adjudication Decisions under s 28(1) of the CIPAA.

Parties And Project

[5] The plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the law of Malaysia having its business address at No 15, Jalan CU 4, Taman Cheng Utama, Melaka.

[6] The defendant is a private limited company incorporated under the law of Malaysia having its business address at No 88, Jalan IM 14/1, Kawasan Perindustrian Indera Mahkota 25200 Kuantan, Pahang.

[7] The parties entered into a construction contract on 15 December 2009 whereby the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant as its subcontractor for the project known as "Construction, Completion, Testing And Commissioning of Building Works For (i) 4 Blocks of 60 Units Double-Storey Shop; (ii) 1 Block 8 Units of Double-Storey Shop; (iii) 3 Blocks of 37 Units of 2Vi, Storey Shop on Lot 234 & 237, Mukim Mentakab, Daerah Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur" ("the Contract"). The original contract sum was RM 17,828,968.00.

[8] As there was no proper payment term in the contract, the plaintiff relied on s 36 of the CIPAA as the default payment term.

[9] The plaintiff initiated adjudication proceedings under CIPAA.

Proceedings In Adjudication

[10] The facts as narrated by learned counsel for the plaintiff in her written submissions are reproduced below.

The First Adjudication Decision Dated 15 June 2017

[11] Based on the contract, the defendant had failed to make the outstanding sum in the amount of RM1,238,814.40 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff initiated adjudication proceedings under the CIPAA.

[12] On 30 March 2017, the plaintiff had issued a Payment Claim made under the CIPAA to demand the outstanding amount owed by the defendant. The Payment Claim was made in accordance to s 5 where:

a) the payment claim was made in writing;

b) the amount claimed and due date for payment for payment of the amount claimed;

c) details to identify the cause of action including the provision in the construction contract to which the payment relates;

d) description of the work or serv