JUDGMENT

AzIan SuIaiman J:

Introduction

[1] These two Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 9 April 2025 in Adjudication Reference No: AIAC/D/ADJ-5758-2025 ("Adjudication Decision") under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("Act") that Kota Kaybina And Bhd ("KK") obtained against FGM Engineering Sdn Bhd ("FGM").

[2] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-85-05/2025 ("OS 85"), FGM is applying under ss 15(b) and/or 15(d) of the Act to set the Adjudication Decision aside.

[3] By an application in Encl. 9 in OS 85 ("Stay Application"), FGM is applying under s 16(1)(a) of the Act to stay the Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of OS 85.

[4] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-97-05/2025 ("OS 97"), KK is applying under s 28 of the Act for an order to enforce the Adjudication Decision against FGM as if it is a judgment of the High Court .

[5] As a matter of prudence, I decided to hear both Originating Summonses together. This Grounds of Judgment is thus on both.

[6] Further as a matter of prudence, I will decide OS 85 first and then only OS 97, 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.

[7] However, in deciding OS 85 first I find that there is no need to separately decide the Stay Application. As the stay sought is until the disposal of OS 85, deciding OS 85 will in itself decide the outcome of the Stay Application.

Salient Background Facts

[8] By a Letter of Award dated 28 May 2024, FGM had appointed KK as a subcontractor to "supply and install infrastructure and landscape works ("Works") for a construction project in Shah Alam ("Project").

[9] During the course of the Project, between May to September 2024, KK had submitted five progress claims to FGM.

[10] Prior to KK's fifth Progress Claim, FGM had issued a Certificate of Non-Completion to KK as well as a notice of its intention to claim LAD from KK. These were disputed by KK.

[11] On 11 November 2024, KK issued a Payment Claim under the Act to FGM for payment of the sum totaling RM382,147.19.

[12] Under the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator decided that FGM is to pay to KK within 14 days of the Adjudication Decision:

(i) the sum of RM262,555.07 in respect of Interim Payment Certificate No. 02, with interest;

(ii) the sum of RM4,698.55 in respect of Interim Payment Certificate No 03, with interest;

(iii) the sum of RM24,480.79 in respect of Interim Payment Certificate No. 04, with interest; and

(iv) costs of RM25,000.00.

[13] FGM filed OS 85 on 6 May 2025, and KK filed OS 97 on 27 May 2025.

[14] FGM has not paid to KK any of the sums payable under the Adjudication Decision.

Grounds For Setting An Adjudication Decision Aside

[15] The operative section of the Act for setting an adjudication decision aside is s 15 of the Act. Under s 15 of the Act, the Court 's powers for setting an adjudication decision aside 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) 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] As I had said earlier, FGM is applying to set the Adjudication Decision aside under ss 15(b) and/or 15(d) of the Act. This means that FGM alleges that there has been a denial of natural justice in the making of the adjudication decision, and/or that the Adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction in making the Adjudication Decision.

FGM's Grounds For Setting The Adjudication Decision Aside

[17] In FGM's Affidavits and Submissions in su