Adjudication decisions under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 are upheld unless there is clear evidence of fraud or denial of natural justice, with the burden of proof on the challenging party.

Introduction

[1] Common to all three Originating Summons is an Adjudication Decision dated 20 November 2024 in Adjudication No. AIAC/D/ADJ-5422-2024 ("AD 5422") that Geo Hill Construction Sdn Bhd ("Geo Hill") obtained against Pesat Bumi Sdn Bhd ("Pesat Bumi") under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("Act").

[2] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-207-12/2024 ("OS 207"), Pesat Bumi is applying under s 16(1)(b) of the Act to stay AD 5422 pending the disposal of Kuala Lumpur High Court No: WA-22NCC-802-11/2024 filed on 13 November 2024 ("Civil Suit").

[3] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-208-12/2024 ("OS 208"), Pesat Bumi is applying under s 15(a) and 15(b) of the Act to set AD 5422 aside.

[4] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-26-2/2025 ("OS 26"), Geo Hill is applying under s 28 of the Act to enforce AD 5422 against Pesat Bumi.

[5] As a matter of prudence and practicality, I heard all three Originating Summonses together. This Judgment is thus on all three.

[6] Further, as a matter of prudence, this Judgment will be on OS 208 first, followed by OS 207, and then OS 26, for the simple reason that, if AD 5422 is set aside, then there will be no adjudication decision to stay or enforce.

Salient Background Facts

[7] By a Letter of Award dated 5 June 2016 read together with an Agreement and Conditions of PAM Contract 2006 (With Quantities) (collectively, "Contract"), Pesat Bumi had engaged Geo Hill to carry out Stage 1 Works Earthwork, Retaining Walls, Bored Piling, Contiguous Bored Piling (CBP) Works and Foundation Works ("Works") in a construction project in Genting Permai, Bentong, Pahang for the construction of one 38-storey block of service apartments ("Project").

[8] The Works were completed, and a final account of 30 January 2020 had certified the value of the Works at RM29,500,000.00. Nevertheless, Geo Hill contended that there was still a sum of RM4,204,613.05 due and payable to it by Pesat Bumi.

[9] On 31 May 2024, Geo Hill issued a Payment Claim under the Act to Pesat Bumi for payment of that sum of RM4,204,613.05. In the resulting adjudication proceedings, Pesat Bumi countered that, in reality, there was instead a sum of RM8,386,383.53 owed to it under the Contract by Geo Hill.

[10] In AD 5422, Pesat Bumi is to pay to Geo Hill, within 14 days of AD 5422:

(1) RM4,058,536.27, as the Outstanding Final Account Sum;

(2) RM1,072,598.67, as late payment interest as at 7 October 2024 from 30 January 2020;

(3) Interest on late payment at 5% per annum on the sum of RM4,058,536.27 from 8 October 2024 until full payment; and

(4) RM139,131.99, as adjudication costs.

[11] One week prior to AD 5422, Pesat Bumi filed the Civil Suit.

[12] Pesat Bumi has not paid to Geo Hill any of the sums payable under AD 5422.

[13] Pesat Bumi filed both OS 207 and OS 208 on 17 December 2024. Geo Hill filed OS 26 on 4 February 2025.

OS 208

[14] The operative section of the Act for challenging an adjudication decision is s 15. Under s 15 of the Act, the Court's powers for interfering with an adjudication decision are confined to setting it aside, under any one or more of the four instances set out in limbs (a), (b), (c) and (d) thereof. Section 15 of the Act provides:

"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) AD 5422 was improperly procured through fraud or bribery;

(b) there has been a denial of na