VIEW ESTEEM SDN BHD vs BINA PURI HOLDINGS BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 1849

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
VIEW ESTEEM SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BINA PURI HOLDINGS BHD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. appeal based on jurisdictional challenge under cipaa. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments surrounding jurisdiction, natural justice, and enforcement. (Para 5 , 8 , 11)
3. emergence of payment claims and responses under cipaa. (Para 12 , 13)
4. court's observations on the adjudicator's limitations. (Para 20 , 21)
5. final decision dismissing the appeal. (Para 34 , 35)

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JCA:

[1] The appellant/employer in a construction contract relating to Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA 2012) appeals against the decision of the learned High Court Judge in respect of three applications made by the parties relevant to CIPAA 2012, where the decisions were in favour of the respondent/contractor/employee.

[2] For purpose of convenience, the appellant/employer will be referred to as View Esteem and the respondent/contractor/employee will be referred to as Bina Puri.

[3] The learned trial judge had heard the three applications in the Court below:

(i) the first application was purportedly made to challenge s 41 of CIPPA 2012 by View Esteem with a view to challenge the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. The said section reads as follows:

"41. Savings

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 1849

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAVIEW ESTEEM SDN BHD – AppellantVersusBINA PURI HOLDINGS BHD – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
VIEW ESTEEM SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BINA PURI HOLDINGS BHD – Respondent