Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against stay of adjudication decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. court's observations on stay requirements and adjudication merits. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. appellant argues for stay based on errors and counterclaims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. respondent argues against stay citing statutory requirements. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. legal standards for granting stay under cipaa. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 6. court affirms high court's decision; appeal dismissed. (Para 57) |
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Judge at the High Court ("HC") who had dismissed the application by the appellant for a stay of the adjudication decision by the adjudicator pending arbitration pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA").
Backgrounds Facts
[2] The appellant appointed the respondent as a contractor for some construction works. The date of commencement and completion of the works are on 8 October 2016 and 7 January 2018 respectively. The completion date was extended to 7 April 2018. Howe
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
