JUDGMENT

Azlan Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] These two Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 10 March 2025 in Adjudication Reference No: AIAC/D/ADJ-5660-2024 ("Adjudication Decision") under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 ("Act") that KLF Eletrik Sdn Bhd ("KLF") obtained against SLG Construction Sdn Bhd ("SLG").

[2] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-53-03/2025 ("OS 53"), SLG:

(i) is applying under ss 15(a), 15(b) and/or 15(d) of the Act to set the Adjudication Decision aside;

(ii) is applying under s 16(1)(a) of the Act to stay the Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of OS 53; and

(iii) is applying under s 16(1)(b) of the Act to stay the Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: WA-22C-16-03/2025 ("Civil Suit").

[3] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-61-04/2025 ("OS 61"), KLF:

(i) is applying under s 28 of the Act for an order to enforce the Adjudication Decision against SLG as if it is a judgment of the High Court ; and

(ii) is applying under O 24 r 7A of the Rules of , 2012 for discovery against SLG of documents between it and Tanjung Ratna Sdn Bhd ("TRSB") showing payments TRSB has made, any sums that may be outstanding, and any retention sum that TRSB is still holding.

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

[5] Further as a matter of prudence, I will decide OS 53 first and then only OS 61, 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.

Salient Background Facts

[6] TRSB, as the owner/employer of a construction project in Melaka ("Project") had appointed SLG as the contractor for the Project.

[7] By a Letter of Award dated 11 January 2020, SLG had then appointed KLF as a subcontractor to carry out certain electrical works for the Project at the contract sum of RM7,752,896.00 ("Project").

[8] On 26 September 2024, KLF issued a Payment Claim under the Act to SLG for payment of the sum totaling RM3,228,299.20 consisting of:

(i) RM277,195.54 for admitted work done but unpaid;

(ii) RM2,615,878.69 for uncertified work done; and

(iii) RM335,224.97 as interest.

[9] Under the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator decided that SLG is to pay to KLF on or before 24 March 2025:

(i) the sum of RM2,563,233.86;

(ii) interest on the sum of RM277,195.54 at the rate of 5% per annum from 1 September 2024 until the date of full and final settlement; and

(iii) costs of RM146,514.33.

[10] SLG filed OS 53 on 24 March 2025, and KLF filed OS 61 on 4 April 2025.

[11] SLG has not paid to KLF any of the sums payable under the Adjudication Decision.

Grounds For Setting An Adjudication Decision Aside

[12] 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."

[13] As I had said earlier, SLG is applying to set the Adjudication Decision aside under ss 15(a), 15(b), and/or 15(d) of the Act. This means that SLG alleges that the adjudication decision was improperly procured through fraud or bribery, or that there has been a denial of natural justice, or that the adjudicator exceeded her jurisdiction in making the Adjudication Decision.

SLG's Grounds For Setting The Adjudication Decisi