Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali JCA:

JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]By consent of the parties, the High Court heard two separate applications together. First, the application by TUV SUD (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (TUV) pursuant to s 28Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA)(b), (c) and/or (d) CIPAA via O.S. No. WA-24C- 146-07/2022 (OS 146) to set aside the AD (Setting Aside Application).

[2]After having considered the cause papers and written submissions by the parties, the learned High Court Judge (LHCJ) dismissed Intisari’s Setting Aside Application via OS 146 with cost of RM6,000.00 and allowed TUV’s Enforcement Application via OS 129 with cost of RM4,000.00. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, Intisari appealed. Appeal against OS 129 decision for Enforcement Application is registered as Appeal Case No.: W-02(C)(A)538-04/2023 (Appeal 538) and Appeal against OS 146 decision for Setting Aside Application is registered as Appeal Case No.: W-02(C)(A)539-04/2023 (Appeal 539).

[3]Before us, both Appeal 538 dan Appeal 539 were heard together and decided together.

Brief Background Facts

[4]The background facts for TUV’s Enforcement Application and Intisari’s Setting Aside Application as na