JUDGMENT

Azlan Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] These three Originating Summons revolve around an Adjudication Decision dated 20 May 2025 in Adjudication Proceedings Ref No: AIAC/D/ADJ-5776 ("Adjudication Decision") that Perusahaan Radzmin Sdn Bhd ("Perusahaan Radzmin") had obtained against Exyte Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("Exyte") under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 ("Act").

[2] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-105-06/2025 ("OS 105"), Exyte is seeking to set the Adjudication Decision aside under s 15(d) of the Act.

[3] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-112-06/2025 ("OS 112"), Perusahaan Radzmin is seeking an order under s 28 of the Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision against Exyte.

[4] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-105-06/2025 ("OS 105"), Exyte is seeking to set the Adjudication Decision aside under s 15(d) of the Act.

[5] By a Consent Order dated 18 June 2025 ("Consent Order"), Exyte and Perusahaan Radzmin had amicably agreed to an interim stay of the Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of OS 105, by depositing the sum of RM1,286,966.70 payable under the Adjudication Decision with Exyte's solicitors as stakeholder ("Stakeholder"), subject to the condition that, if OS 105 is decided in Perusahaan Radzmin, then the Stakeholder would release the said sum with interest to Perusahaan Radzmin within 14 days of that decision.

[6] On 2 July 2025, Exyte issued a Notice of Arbitration to Perusahaan Radzmin, and by Originating Summons No: WA-24C-120-07/2025 ("OS 120"), Exyte is further seeking to stay the Adjudication Decision under s 16(1)(b) of the Act pending the final determination of the subject matter of the Adjudication Decision by arbitration.

[7] All three Originating Summonses are being heard together. The first focus is naturally on OS 101, for the simple reason that, if the Adjudication Decision is set aside, then there will be no adjudication decision to enforce or stay, nothing left to enforce. So, this judgment will deal with that first.

[8] Next up will be OS 112. If Exyte fails to set the Adjudication Decision aside, then by right Perusahaan Radzmin ought to be allowed to enforce the Adjudication Decision. The Consent Order shows that the parties are in consensus on that.

[9] Taking up the rear will be the court's decision on OS 120. It is only on allowing OS 112 that OS 120 will be considered. In my view it should not be the other way around. Should such a stay be granted but Perusahaan Radzmin appeals against that stay and succeeds, it should not have to revisit an application to enforce the Adjudication Decision.

Salient Background Facts

[10] The contracts between the parties are PRSB Framework Order No MAL-5315318 dated 8 August 2022 for the sum of RM3,309,320.00 ("PO No 1") and PRSB Framework Order No MAL-5314892 for the sum of RM13,289,347.20 ("PO No 2") (collectively, "Contracts").

[11] The Contracts were for the supply by Perusahaan Radzmin of foreign workers, with the scope of those services including:

(i) Assisting with the foreign worker quota application;

(ii) Arranging physical interview sessions in Bangladesh;

(iii) Facilitating mandatory medical screening of the workers for work permits;

(iv) Providing passport, visa, and work permits to the workers;

(v) Arranging for flights from Dhaka, Bangladesh to KLIA to Penang; and

(vi) Assisting with the necessary immigration and custom paperwork, clearance, working permit and registration at the airport.

[12] Exyte has paid to Perusahaan Radzmin the contract sums of RM3,309,320.00 and RM13,289,347.20 under the Contracts.

[13] Perusahaan Radzmin's claim against Exyte is for the sum of RM1,533,671.85 ("Claimed Sum"), made up of the following:

[14] After Exyte disputed Perusahaan's demand for that Claimed Sum, on 22 November 2024, Perusahaan Radzmin issued a Payment Claim under the Act to Exyte for payment of the Claimed Sum, which Exyte also disputed. Exyte's main ground of dispute is that Exyte that the Contract is not a construction and does not relat