[21] In the recent judgment of the Federal Court, in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Holdings Berhad, [2018] 2 MLJ 22, it was held:

"[54] The principle that jurisdiction is about subject-matter applies to every statute. Thus, CIPAA applies only to "construction contracts" as defined under the Act (see ss 2, 3 & 4) and that the "payment dispute" must arise under a construction contract. These are fundamental jurisdictional premises for CIPAA to apply. Sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA relate to this. Section 5 of CIPAA speaks of a "payment pursuant to a construction contract". By s 4 of CIPAA, "payment" is defined as "payment for work done ... under the express terms of a construction contract". The response under s 6 of CIPAA has to be in relation to the "payment" claim under ss 4 and 5 of CIPAA as to whether it is admitted or disputed.

[55] By s 27(1) of CIPAA, the arbitrator's jurisdiction "is limited to the matter referred to adjudication" pursuant to ss 5 and 6 of CIPAA. It refers to the "identification of the cause of action" in relation to the construction contract as required under s 5(2)(b) of CIPAA. In turn, the payment response under s 6 of CIPAA is defined and limited by the c