[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court that had dismissed a s 30 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA") application by the successful claimant (subcontractor) in an adjudication decision for an order to compel the principal (employer) to make direct payment to it on account of money "due or payable" by the principal to the unsuccessful respondent in the adjudication who is the main contractor.

[2] The issues raised in this appeal were whether retention sum retained by the principal from certified amounts due to the main contractor was money "due or payable" to the main contractor from the principal and whether on the balance of probabilities the subcontractor had proved that there was money "due or payable" from the principal to the main contractor when the request for payment was served on the principal under s 30(1) of the CIPAA.

[3] It was also argued by the principal who is the Government of Malaysia ("GOM") and more particularly Jabatan Kerja Raya ("JKR") that since it did not recognise nor consent to the main contractor appointing the subcontractor, it was not bound to make any payments under s 30 of the CIPA