The adjudicator's jurisdiction under the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012 is strictly confined to issues raised in payment claims and responses, emphasizing procedural compliance.

[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

Nothing in this Act shall affect any proceedings relating to any payment dispute under a construction contract which had been commenced in any Court or arbitration before the coming into operation of this Act."

(ii) the second application was Bina Puris application, seeking registration and enforcement of the award as a judgment of the Court pursuant to s 28 of CIPAA 2012. The said section reads as follows:

"28. Enforcement of adjudication decision as judgment

1. A party may enforce an adjudication decision by applying to the High Court for an order to enforce the adjudication decision as if it is a judgment or order of the High Court.

2. The High Court may make an order in respect of the adjudication decision either wholly or partly and may make an order in respect of interest on the adjudicated amount payable.

3. The order made under subsection (2) may be executed in accordance with the rules on execution of the orders or judgment of the High Court."

(iii) the third application was by View Esteem, to set aside and/or stay the award of the adjudication pursuant to ss 15 and 16 of CIPAA 2012. The said sections read as follows:

"15. Improperly Procured Adjudication Decision

An aggrieved party may apply to the High Court to set aside an adjudication decision on one or more of the following grounds:

a. The adjudication decision was improperly procured through fraud or bribery;

b. There has been a denial of natural justice;

c. The adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially; or

d. The adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction.

16. Stay of Adjudication Decision

1. A party may apply to the High Court for a stay of an adjudication decision in the following circumstances:

a. An application to set aside the adjudication decision under s 15 has been made; or

b. The subject matter of the adjudication decision is pending final determination by arbitration or the Court.

2. The High Court may grant a stay of the adjudication decision or order the adjudicated amount or part of it to be deposited with the Director of the KLRCA or make any other order as it thinks fit."

[4] The learned trial judge had written 80 pages judgment setting out the facts and law in meticulous detail. To save courts time, we do not wish to repeat what was said in the judgment save where necessary. This judgment must be read together with the High Courts judgment which has been reported in [2015] MLRHU 850 for comprehensiveness.

[5] In conclusion, the learned trial judge had dismissed both of View Esteems applications and allowed Bina Puris application to enforce the award. View Esteems Memorandum of Appeal reads as follows:

"1. The learned judge erred in law and fact in dismissing the Appellants application in Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No 24C-1906/2015 to declare the adjudi