The decision of an adjudicator binds parties unless challenged under specific statutory provisions, requiring proper applications to set aside such decisions before opposing enforcement.

[1] In this appeal, the High Court had dismissed the appellant's application to enforce an adjudication decision dated 25 May 2017 rendered in its favour. Upon full deliberations and considerations of the records of appeal and the submissions of both learned counsel, we allowed the appeal.

The Construction Contract

[2] Pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance dated 13 November 2014, the appellant accepted its appointment by the respondent, as the sub-contractor in the project known as "Cadangan Projek Pembersihan Teluk dan Pembinaan Breakwater Sempena Langkawi ASEAN Summit 2015, Bandar Kuah, Daerah Langkawi, Kedah Darul Aman" for the sum of RM12,059,821.00. The Employer of the project is Lembaga Pembangunan Langkawi [LADA] while the respondent is the main Contractor. The appellant's scope of subcontract works was to undertake, execute, construct and complete a fringing reef and tidal gates and, to lay geotextile and sand on the lagoon; the details of the nature of the subcontract works being found within the Specifications [subcontract works].

[3] The appellant carried out and completed the subcontract works on 14 April 2015 and, pursuant to the respondent's instructions, the appellant demobilised and left the site on 24 April 2015. The respondent thought otherwise and on 15 July 2015, it determined the appointment of the appellant as subcontractor in the project.

The Adjudication

[4] In the course of the subcontract works, the appellant submitted to the respondent, a total of eight progress claims between 24 December 2014 and 14 April 2015. Of the eight progress claims, Progress Claims Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were partially honoured while Progress Claims Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were unpaid.

[5] The appellant then invoked the adjudication regime under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [CIPAA 2012] alleging non-payment of its progress claims. Pursuant to s 5 of, the appellant, as the claimant, served on the respondent a Payment Claim dated 4 April 2016 for the sum of RM6,258,435.85 for the sums due under the progress claims issued to the respondent. On 18 April 2016, the respondent served its Payment Response on the appellant, disputing the entire amount. The Payment Response contained a cross-claim for the sum of RM4,189,029.43.

[6] The appellant issued two notices of adjudication. The first was on 20 May 2016. That adjudication ended without an adjudication decision due to the demise of then Adjudicator sometime in November 2016. On 22 December 2016, the appellant filed a second notice of adjudication for the same sum stipulated in the Payment Claim. In the second notice of adjudication, the appellant sought payment for the same sum of RM6,258,435.85. On 15 February 2017, a second Adjudicator was appointed under s 23(1) of CIPAA 2012.

[7] In the Adjudication Claim, details were given of the claim together with supporting documents. The appellant inter alia claimed that its eight progress claims totalled RM11,502,718.25 before the subcontract was terminated on 15 July 2015. To date, the appellant claimed to have only been paid RM5,244,282.10 for the first four progress claims while the last three, amounting to RM4,923,573.00 had yet to be paid.

[8] The reliefs sought by the appellant inter alia were as follows:

i. an award of payment in the sum of RM6,258,435.85 (including deficit of previous Progress Claims No. 1, 2 and 3) due and owing to the claimant as at 14 May 2015 (due date for Progress Claim 8 plus 30 days of honouring payment);

ii. in the alternative, the claimant is entitled to the sum of RM4,923,573.00 being outstanding payment for Progress Claim No. 6, Progress Claim No. 7 and Progress Claim No. 8;

iii. in the further alternative, the claim