The court affirmed that an adjudicator's decision under CIPAA is valid despite the absence of joint auditor certification, emphasizing the adjudicator's powers to determine disputes even without such certification.

(Encl 1)

[1] In Originating Summons No. WA-24C-24-01/2025 (OS 24), Perbadanan Putrajaya ("PP") had applied to this court under s 15(b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA") to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 10 January 2025 ("AD") given in favour of Damasara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd ("DRSB").

[2] We also have Originating Summons No. WA-24C-25-01/2025 (OS 25) where PP has applied to stay the AD pursuant to s 16 CIPAA.

[3] Finally, there is Originating Summons No. WA-24C-37-02/2025 (OS 37) in which DRSB has applied to enforce the said Ad in accordance with s 28 CIPAA.

[4] All the above 3 Originating Summons were heard together before this court.

[5] In support of OS 24, PP had, to surmise, relied on 2 grounds being

5.1 the Learned Adjudicator ("Adjudicator") did not have the jurisdiction to hear DRSB's claim as the Development Agreement ("DA"), which will be referred to in more detail later, is not a construction agreement under CIPAA;

5.2 alternatively, the Adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction by allowing the claim which had yet to be certified by the Joint Auditors

Brief Background Facts

[6] By way of Letter of Appointment dated 26 November 20151 the applicant appointed the respondent as the Developer of a Project known as "Developing the Perumahan Penjawat Awam 1 Malaysia (PPA1M) Putrajaya", being affordable homes for public officers on the Project Land located at No. Lot PT 12952 (5R7) in the district of Precint 5 in the state of Putrajaya ("Project"). The Respondent duly accepted the appointment on 10 December 2015.

[7] This arrangement was formalised vide the execution of a Development Agreement - Contract No.: PPj/P3/JR7/RFP2/31/2015(KWP) dated 14 October 2016 ("DA") by the applicant and the respondent.

[8] In accordance with cl 3.1 of the DA, the respondent's scope of work under the DA comprised the construction and development of 1350 Units of PPA1M and 45 Units of Non -PPA1M / Commercial (6 Storey Commercial Offices), where pursuant to Preamble D of the DA, the respondent was required to contribute and bear the entire cost and expenses of developing the said Project, subject to and upon the terms and conditions stipulated in the DA therein.

[9] Pursuant to cl 5.1 of the DA, the Gross Development Costs for the Project is estimated at RM467,313,579.39.

[10] Upon the respondent's appointment under the DA, the respondent had undertaken and carried out preliminary construction works in accordance with the terms and conditions of the DA and had incurred costs and expenses.

[11] On 22 February 2019, the applicant issued a Notice of Termination3 to the respondent, terminating the DA on grounds of national or public interests pursuant to cl 26.1 of the DA. In the same letter, the applicant had expressly stated that it was aware of the consequences of such termination as provided for under cls 26.2.1 and 26.2.2 of the DA. However, the applicant did not specify and / or indicate the particulars of national or public interest relied on to terminate the DA.

[12] Despite being surprised by the termination and the fact that no reason was given by the applicant for the same, by way of letter dated 26 February 2019, the respondent accepted the applicant's termination and expressly informed the applicant that it would submit its claims for all costs and expenses incurred by it for the construction works done as provided for under cls 26.2.1 and 26.2.2 of the DA.

[13] Following a meeting held on 19 March 2019 between the applicant and the respondent, the respond