Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MARTEGO SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
ARKITEK MEOR & CHEW SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the appeals and definitions of appellant and respondent. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. facts surrounding the arbitration and adjudication that took place. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments relating to the construction industry payment and adjudication act and its applicability. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 4. court's observations on the applicability of statutory adjudication processes. (Para 13) |
| 5. arguments regarding jurisdiction of cipaa in terms of architecture fee recovery. (Para 19) |
| 6. court's deliberation on jurisdiction and conclusion about the applicability of cipaa. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. final ruling on the nature of claims under cipaa and dismissal of appeals. (Para 37 , 41) |
| 8. final conclusion regarding the appeals and orders made by the court. (Para 55 , 56) |
[1] Before us are two appeals, namely, Appeal W-02 (C)(A)-1496-08-2016 (Appeal 1496) and W-02(C)(A)-1497-08-2016 (Appeal 1497). In Appeal 1496, the appellant sought to set aside an adjudication decision dated 14 April 2016 in the High Court but was rejected by the learned judge. In Appeal 1497, the appellant's appeal relates to the decision of the High Court allowing the enforc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
