Back
Next 
2019 MarsdenLR 1650
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CT INDAH CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BHL GEMILANG SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(C)(A)-2056-10-2017]
Petitioner Advocates:Foo Joon Liang ,Respondent Advocate: Ng Sai Yeang,Wong Chee Chien
The obligation for direct payment under s 30 of CIPAA persists despite the liquidation of the main contractor, overriding the provisions of preferential payment under the Companies Act.
Headnote:This judgment involves an appeal pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), specifically addressing the statutory obligations imposed by s 30 regarding direct payment by a principal. The appellant, a subcontractor, sought a declaration against the principal for outstanding payments following an adjudication decision. The court primarily determined that s 30 imposes an independent statutory obligation on the respondent to make direct payments despite the status of the main contractor. The court examined the framework of s 293 of the Companies Act regarding preferential payments and found it did not bar the application of s 30 of CIPAA. The court concluded that the statutory duty of payment remains intact, irrespective of the liquidated status of the main contractor, and that relying on s 30 of CIPAA creates a binding obligation. Thereby, the High Court's decision was incorrect on these points, leading to a reversal of its findings. The court allowed the appeal and ordered costs of RM20,000 to the appellant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts establishing direct payment under cipaa. (Para 1) |
[1] This appeal by the appellant CT Indah Construction Sdn Bhd was against the decision of the High Court dismissing its action pursuant to s 30 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA") for, inter alia, a declaration that the respondent was liable as the principal of BHL Builders Sdn Bhd ("BHL Builders") to pay it the outstanding amount due under the Adjudication decision dated 13 October 2016. We allowed the appeal by a unanimous decision and these are our grounds.
