JUDGMENT

Azlan Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] The connection between these two Originating Summons is an Adjudication Decision dated 23 January 2025 in Adjudication Reference No: AIAC/D/ADJ-5589-2024 ("Adjudication Decision") under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 ("Act") that Basics Decor Sdn Bhd ("BD") obtained against Ventura International Sdn Bhd ("VI").

[2] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-93-05/2025 ("OS 93"), BD is applying under s 28 of the Act for an order to enforce the Adjudication Decision against VI as if it is a judgment of the High Court .

[3] By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-103-05/2025 ("OS 103"), VI is applying under ss 15(b) and/or 15(d) of the Act to set the Adjudication Decision aside.

[4] By an application in encl 45 in OS 103 ("Stay Application"), VI is also applying under s 16(1)(a) of the Act to stay the Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of OS 103.

[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 103 first and then only OS 93, 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 103 first, I find that there is no further need to decide the Stay Application. As the stay sought is until the disposal of OS 103, deciding OS 103 will in itself decide the outcome of the Stay Application.

Salient Background Facts

[8] By a contract consisting of, inter alia, a Letter of Award dated 17 November 2020 ("LOA") and Conditions of Contract - PAM Contract 2006 (Without Quantities) ("PAM Contract") VI had appointed BD as a contractor to carry out refurbishment and interior renovation works ("Works") on its hotel in Kuala Lumpur at the contract sum of RM25,000,000.00 ("Project").

[9] During the course of the Works, BD issued a Notice of Default to VI for, inter alia, VI's failure to make payment on Progress Claim No 24 and on the failure of the Project Manager to certify its Progress Claim No 25.

[10] On 16 May 2024, BD then issued a Payment Claim under the Act to VI for payment of the sum totaling RM7,861,391.00 ("Payment Claim").

[11] When VI did not respond to the Payment Claim, BD issued a Notice of Adjudication dated 21 June 2024 and, after the Adjudicator was appointed, an Adjudication Claim dated 3 September 2024. However, three days after receiving VI's Adjudication Response dated 20 September 2024, BD decided to withdraw that adjudication proceedings.

[12] By a new Notice of Adjudication dated 26 September 2024, BD initiated fresh adjudication proceedings based on the same Payment Claim, and the parties exchanged a fresh Adjudication Claim dated 7 November 2024 ("Adjudication Claim"), an Adjudication Response dated 21 November 2024, and an Adjudication Reply dated 28 November 2024 ("Adjudication Reply")

[13] In the Adjudication Proceedings, BD claimed the following:

(i) RM701,223.50 as certified amounts under PC 24 ("Claim 1");

(ii) RM3,596,160.21 as uncertified amounts under PC 25 ("Claim 2");

(iii) RM1,960,447.86 as uncertified amounts under its Final Claim ("Claim 3"); and

(iv) RM667,210.42 as the 2nd moiety of the retention sum ("Claim 4").

[14] Under the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator allowed Claim 1 and Claim 2 in full and decided that VI was to pay those sums to BD on or before 6 February 2025, with interest and costs.

[15] The Adjudicator did not make any decision in regard to Claim 3 and 4. In respect of Claim 3, in paras 43-45 of the Adjudication Decision the Adjudicator said:

"43. Since a Certificate of Practical Completion has not been issued, I am unable to exercise my power pursuant to s 25(n) of CIPAA 2012 to certify the Final Claim.

44. However, at this juncture, I invoke my power under s 25(n) of CIPAA 2012 and direct the respondent to appoint a new PMC or contract administrator who is independent, competent, credible and reputable within thirty (30) days