Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SARENS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Respondent
Please provide the legal document content (inside
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application to set aside adjudication decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. grounds for setting aside an adjudication decision. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. natural justice principles overview. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. jurisdictional challenges and adjudicator's empowerment. (Para 18 , 22 , 25) |
| 5. findings on adjudicators' considerations. (Para 30 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. cipaa adjudication aims and concurrent proceedings. (Para 35 , 36 , 38) |
| 7. dismissal of the originating summons. (Para 49 , 50 , 52 , 53) |
Introduction
[1] This Judgment is on the application by the Plaintiff ("Exyte") under ss 15(b), 15(c) and 15(d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 ("Act") to set aside an Adjudication Decision dated 31 December 2024 in Adjudication Proceedings Ref: AIAC/D/ADJ-5429-2024 ("Adjudication Decision") that the Defendant ("Sarens") had obtained against it.
Salient Background Facts
[2] By a Letter of Award dated 30 December 2021 and other contract documents (collectively, "Contract"), Exyte (as hirer) had appointed Sarens forthe supply, delivery, preparation including all local approvals and licenses, operation and maintenance of two units of 8
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
