JUDGMENT

Azlan Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] These three Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 17 December 2024 in Adjudication Reference No: AIAC/D/ADJ-876-2024 ("Adjudication Decision") that Menta Construction Sdn Bhd ("Menta") obtained against Widad (M) Sdn Bhd ("Widad") under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 ("Act").

[2] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-87-05/2025 ("OS 87"), Widad is applying to set the Adjudication Decision aside under ss 15(b) and 15(c) of the Act.

[3] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-88-05/2025 ("OS 88"), Widad is applying to stay the Adjudication Decision under s 16(1)(a) of the Act pending the disposal of OS 87.

[4] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-94-05/2025 ("OS 94"), Menta is applying under s 28 of the Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision against Widad.

[5] At the Case Management on 29 May 2025, I directed all three Originating Summons to be heard together, and issued further directions for affidavits and written submissions.

[6] The order in which I will decide them is OS 87 first followed by OS 94 and then only OS 88. The rational is that, if the Adjudication Decision is set aside, then there will be nothing left to enforce or stay. Likewise, only if the Adjudication Decision is to be enforced should a stay of it come into issue.

Salient Background Facts

[7] By a Letter of Award dated 13 September 2022 ("LOA"), Widad had appointed Menta as a subcontractor to carry out earthworks ("Works") for a mixed development project in Langkasuka, Langkawi ("Project").

[8] On 30 July 2024, Menta had issued a Payment Claim dated 22 July 2024 ("Payment Claim") under the Act to Widad to claim payment of the sum of RM3,641,600.31 consisting of:

(i) the sums totalling RM3,353,177.82 alleged to be due and owing to it under Payment Certificate Nos 3, 4 and 5 (collectively, "Payment Certificates");

(ii) the sums totalling RM508,420.49 that Widad had retained under Payment Certificate Nos 1-5 (collectively, "Retention Sums");

(iii) the sum of RM352,441.96 as interest at the rate of 7.4% per annum on outstanding payments until 22 July 2024;

(iv) further interest at the rate of 7.4% per annum from 23 July 2024 until full payment; and

(v) costs.

[9] Widad did not file any payment response to the Payment Claim, or any adjudication response to Menta's subsequent Adjudication Claim dated 11 November 2024 ("Adjudication Claim").

[10] In para 76 of the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator made the following determination:

"(i) Payment for outstanding amounts payable under Payment Certificates 3, 4, 5 in the sum of RM3,461,600.31 ("Adjudication Sum");

(ii) Interest of RM352,441.96 for overdue payments up to 22 July 2024;

(iii) Interest calculated at 7.4% per annum for the Adjudication Sum from date of submission of Payment Claim until payment is fully settled by the Respondent;

(iv) The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant party to party costs in respect of this adjudication in the sum of the RM35,000.00; and

(v) Costs for Adjudicator and AIAC in the sum of RM48,584.84 should the Claimant pay for the Respondent's share of costs or RM24,292.42 if the Claimant merely pays for its share of costs."

[11] Widad has not complied with the Adjudication Decision and has not paid to Menta any of the sums payable under the Adjudication Decision.

[12] Widad filed OS 87 and OS 88 on 13 May 2025, and Menta filed OS 94 on 20 May 2025.

OS 87

[13] The operative section of the Act for challenging an adjudication decision is s 15. Under s 15 of the Act, the court's powers for interfering with an adjudication decision 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