SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 3512

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MN PERMAI NETCOM SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
HALLMARK SEASON SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24C-145-09/2024 & WA-24C-154-10/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:Joy Appukuttan,Kelvynn Foo Wai Tzen ,Respondent Advocate: Mak Hon Pan

Validity of adjudication decision affirmed; adjudicator's jurisdiction upheld amid concurrent civil suit, with no grounds found to set aside or deny natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Sections 15, 16, 28 - Adjudication Decision - Validity challenged by respondent seeking declaration of invalidity, set aside or stay of decision - Adjudicator’s jurisdiction upheld as proceedings allowed concurrently with ongoing civil suit; dismissal of claims on grounds of res judicata and abuse of process rejected - Affidavit grounds reduced to jurisdictional issues; no error or denial of natural justice established - Appeal to enforce adjudication decision permitted. (Paras 15, 19, 37, 47, 86)

Facts of the case:
The originating summonses involve parties in a construction project dispute, with MN Permai contesting an adjudication decision that mandated payment to Hallmark. Concurrent civil suit pending; MN Permai argues the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction due to ongoing litigation. (Paras 5, 6, 13)

Findings of Court:
The adjudicator's decision remains enforceable despite the ongoing proceedings, upholding concurrent claims under the Construction Act as valid. The High Court declares no jurisdictional errors or grounds justifying setting aside the adjudication decision were presented. (Paras 23, 86)

Issues: The validity of the adjudication decision, the jurisdiction of the adjudicator in light of concurrent civil litigation, and whether the principles of natural justice were upheld. (Paras 15, 40, 86)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the adjudicator had appropriate jurisdiction to decide the claim independently of the civil suit; concurrent processes do not undermine the authority or procedure of adjudication. (Paras 24, 30, 47)

Result: OS 145 dismissed; OS 154 allowed, enforcing the adjudication decision.

Table of Content
1. overview of originating summons. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. background facts of the case. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 12)
3. details of adjudication decision. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. challenge against validity of adjudication decision. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. jurisdictional issues discussed. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. concurrent adjudication and litigation processes. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. adjudication interplay with arbitration and litigation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
8. purpose of statutory adjudication. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
9. doctrine of res judicata clarified. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
10. natural justice and procedural fairness. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
11. adjudicator's discretion and authority. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
12. allegations against adjudicator's impartiality. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
13. errors in adjudication decision. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
14. application to stay adjudication decision. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81)
15. court's discretion in stay applications. (Para 82 , 83 , 84)
16. final orders made by the court. (Para 86 , 93 , 94)
Azlan Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-145-09/2024 ("OS 145"), MN Permai Netcom Sdn Bhd (now known as Netcomx Sdn Bhd) ("MN Permai") is essentially invoking ss 15(b), 15(c), 15(d) and 16(1)(b) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("Act") to:

(i) Declare that an Adjudication Decision dated 28 August 2024 ("Adjudication Decision") that Hallmark Season Sdn Bhd ("Hallmark") had obtained against it is invalid, null and void; or

(ii) Set aside the Adjudication Decision; or

(iii) Stay the Adjudication Decision pending the outcome of Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-451 -08/2023 ("Civil Suit").

[2] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-154-10/2024 ("OS 145"), Hallmark is in turn invoking s 28 of the Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision against MN Permai.

[3] As a matter of prudence, I heard both Originating Summonses together. This Judgment is thus on both.

[4] Further as a matter of prudence, I will decide OS 145 first and then only OS 154, not just because of the order in which they were filed but for the simple reason that, if the Adjudication Decision is set aside, then there will be nothing left to enforce.

Salient Background Facts

[5] By a Letter of Award dated 18 May 2022, MN Permai had engaged Hallmark to carry out certain works in a construction project in Kulim High Tech, Kedah Darul Aman ("Project").

[6] In August 2023, Hallmark and another contractor for the Project named Teraju Mentari Sdn Bhd ("Teraju") jointly filed the Civil Suit, principally to claim sums alleged to be due and owing from MN Permai to each of them under the Project. In the Civil Suit, MN Permai filed a counterclaim against both Hallmark and Teraju for sums exceeding their claims against MN Permai.

[7] By an Order made on 5 March 2024 ("High Court Order"), Hallmark's and Teraju's application for summary judgment of their claims against MN Permai ("summary judgment application") was dismissed, and the full trial was fixed for late-January 2026.

[8] On 17 April 2024, Hallmark issued a Payment Claim under the Act to MN Permai for payment of the same sum that it claimed against MN Permai in the Civil Suit.

[9] Despite MN Permai having objected to the Payment Claim and to Hallmark having brought the adjudication proceedings, primarily on the grounds of the pending Civil Suit for the same claim and the dismissal of the summary judgment application prior to the Payment Claim having been issued, the Learned Adjudicator appointed under the Act to adjudicate Hallmark's disputed claim nevertheless proceeded with the adjudication of it and made the Adjudication Decision.

[10] Under the Adjudication Decision, MN Permai is to pay to Hallmark, within 30 days of the Adjudication Decision:

(a) RM1,638,644.99, being the Adjudicated Amount;

(b) Interest on the Adjudicated Amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of the Adjudication Decision until real

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top