The Adjudicator's jurisdiction is established based on the existence of a valid contract, affirmed by the court, allowing a conditional stay of the adjudication decision pending arbitration outcomes.

[1] There were two Originating Summonses that were directed to be heard together, as is so often the case where one is for setting aside an Adjudication Decision and another is for enforcement of the Adjudication Decision. There was also a separate prayer made within the Setting Aside Originating Summons to stay the Adjudication Decision pending the conclusion of an arbitration involving the same subject matter of the dispute in India.

Parties

[2] The parties must now be introduced. Punj Lloyd Sdn Bhd ("PLSB") had applied as the plaintiff to set aside the Adjudication Decision made against it as the respondent in an Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA"). The defendants as the claimants in the Adjudication were Ramo Industries Sdn Bhd ("RISB"), a Malaysian company and Ramo Industries Pte Ltd ("RIPL"), a Singapore company, which had formed an unincorporated joint venture ("Ramos JV") to carry out the construction contract awarded to them by PLSB.

[3] This fact, as found by the Adjudicator, was vigorously disputed by PLSB which had maintained at the Adjudication and before this court that the contract was between its joint venture partner Punj Lloyd Limited ("PLL"), incorporated in India with the Ramos JV. PLL is the holding company of PLSB.

[4] PLSB had also alternatively applied for a stay of the Adjudication Decision pending the outcome of a continuing arbitration in India between PLL and the Ramos JV. Though PLSB is not a party to that arbitration, it nevertheless maintained that its locus to apply for Stay of the Adjudication Decision is by virtue of the fact that the subject matter of the Adjudication is now the same subject matter of the arbitration in India and so pending final determination by arbitration, thus fulfilling the threshold condition set out in s 16(1)(b) of the CIPAA.

[5] The Ramos JV as the successful claimants in the Adjudication had applied to enforce the Adjudication Decision or more particularly the corrective Adjudication Decision dated 2 July 2018 against PLSB.

[6] Needless to say with respect to PLSBs Stay Application, the Ramos JV are objecting to it.

[7] For the avoidance of confusion as to the identity of the parties in this judgment, the parties to these two Originating Summonses shall be referred to by their acronyms as PLSB and the Ramos JV or sometimes as the respondent and the claimants respectively as they were so referred to in the Adjudication.

Project

[8] PLSB together with its joint venture partner, PLL, were appointed by PRPC Refinery and Cracker Sdn Bhd to carry out work known as Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Commissioning of the RAPID Tank Farm for the Refinery and Petrochemicals Integrated Development (RAPID) Project in Pengereng, Kota Tinggi District, Johor ("the Project").

[9] By a Purchase Order dated 14 September 2015 (SBMY01/38) ("the PO dated 14 September 2015"), PLSB appointed the Ramos JV as the contractors for the work known as "Construction of Pre-Engineered Structure and Pre- Fabricated Building for Accommodation Camp-RAPID PROJECT" for original contract sum of USD19,387,400.00 ("the Works").

[10] As narrated by learned counsel for the Ramos JV, this accommodation camp was to house the workers, supervisors and managers who were involved in what is commonly known as the RAPID Project which is a