JUDGMENT

Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJ:

[1] The appeals before us raised questions of significance relating to an application for a stay under s 16 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) in particular whether a stay can be granted under s 16(1)(b) CIPAA after the adjudication decision is enforced under s 28 CIPAA as an Order of the Court.

[2] In Appeal No. 02(f)-2-01/2023 (W), the questions for this Court's determination are as follows:

Question 1

Whether an adjudication decision, after having been enforced pursuant to s 28 of CIPAA 2012 as an Order of the Court can be stayed pursuant to s 16(1)(b) of the CIPAA 2012.

Question 2

Whether the Court of Appeal in so deciding to allow the stay application pursuant to s 16(1)(b) CIPAA 2012 has overruled or disagreed, or gone beyond the ratio decidendi of the Federal Court decision in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Holdings Sdn Bhd , 2017 MarsdenLR 1270 .

[3] The questions of law in Appeal No. 02(f)-34-05/2023(W) are as follows:

(1) Is the 'financial capacity to repay' test the determinative criteria in considering an application for stay pursuant to s 16 of the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act ("