Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MARTEGO SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
ARKITEK MEOR & CHEW SDN BHD AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of cipaa 2012 (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction and application of cipaa (Para 4 , 5 , 11 , 26 , 27) |
| 3. submission stressing that a valid claim under cipaa needs an operational construction contract. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. court observations on adjudicator's powers and statutory interpretation (Para 13 , 14 , 30 , 31 , 39 , 47) |
| 5. ruling on applicability of cipaa to final claims (Para 17 , 36) |
| 6. cipaa's fundamental aim is to facilitate timely payments in the construction industry. (Para 56) |
| 7. jurisdiction of adjudicators encompasses issues post-termination of contracts under cipaa. (Para 71) |
[1] This appeal concerns the interpretation of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA 2012"). On 2 January 2018, this court granted leave to appeal on four questions as follows:
(i) Whether an adjudicator acts within his jurisdiction in deciding on a matter referred to him under CIPAA 2012 when, at the time of service of the payment claim pursuant to s 5(1) of CIPAA, the construction contract had been terminated and the termination was accepted by both parties and the claim was for determination of sums finally due to the unp
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
