JUDGMENT

Azlan Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] These two Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 11 March 2025 in Adjudication Reference No: AIAC/D/ADJ-5680-2024 ("Adjudication Decision") under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 ("Act") that PLP Electrical Engineering Sdn Bhd ("PLP") obtained against Kerjaya Prospek (M) Sdn Bhd ("KP").

[2] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-73-04/2025 ("OS 73"), PLP is applying under s 28 of the Act for an order to enforce the Adjudication Decision against KP as if it is a judgment of the High Court .

[3] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-79-04/2025 ("OS 79"), KP is applying under ss 15(b) and/or 15(d) of the Act to set the Adjudication Decision aside.

[4] By an application in Enel. 5 in OS 79 ("Stay Application"), KP is applying under s 16(1)(a) of the Act to stay the Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of OS 73.

[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 79 first and then only OS 73, 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 79 first, I find that there is no need to separately decide the Stay Application. As the stay sought is until the disposal of OS 79, deciding OS 79 will in itself decide the outcome of the Stay Application.

Salient Background Facts

[8] By a Letter of Award dated 4 January 2019 ("LOA") read together with the PAM Form of Contract, 2006 ("PAM 2006"), KP had appointed PLP as its nominated subcontractor for electrical installation works ("Works") for a project involving the construction and development of three high-rise condominiums in Penang ("Project").

[9] On 9 October 2024, PLP issued a Payment Claim under the Act to KP for payment of the sum of RM1,894,854.10 for the Works done as certified and the sum of RM315,681.91 as late payment interest ("Payment Claim").

[10] When PLP did not receive any response to the Payment Claim, PLP then initiated adjudication proceedings under the Act, which KP did respond to by its Adjudication Response ("Adjudication Response"). In that Adjudication Response, KP presented a cross-claim for an indemnity against the liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) of RM2,522,956.00 that the employer for the Project had imposed on it.

[11] Payments by KP after PLP had initiated the adjudication proceedings revised PLP's claims to:

(i) RM682,580.63 for Works done;

(ii) RM279,606.38 as late payment interest; and

(iii) RM16,165.94 as late payment interest on overdue payments up to 31 December 2024.

(collectively, "Revised Claims")

[12] In the ensuing Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator allowed those Revised Claims in full, together with

(i) the sum of RM40,000.00, as party-to-party costs;

(ii) the sum of RM18,711.70, as costs of the adjudication proceedings

[13] KP filed OS 73 on 16 April 2025, and PLP filed OS 79 on 29 April 2025.

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

OS 79

Grounds For Setting An Adjudication Decision Aside

[15] Under the Act, the provision for setting an adjudication decision aside is s 15. 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, KP is applying to set the Adjudication Decision