Back
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
ALIZA SULAIMAN, J
Hong Xin Construction Sdn Bhd – Appellant
Versus
Rebana Maju Sdn Bhd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. setting aside application overview (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. background facts of the case (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. plaintiff's grounds for setting aside (Para 18 , 21 , 28) |
| 4. court's observations on powers of adjudicator (Para 19 , 20 , 24) |
| 5. excess of jurisdiction by adjudicator (Para 39 , 46 , 72) |
| 6. conclusion and orders of the court (Para 74 , 75) |
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1]This is a case where the Plaintiff was the claimant in an adjudication proceeding and the learned Adjudicator, Mr. Ramdas Tikamdas (‘Adjudicator’) in his decision dated 6.1.2023 (‘AD’), had dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.
[2]Not surprisingly, the Plaintiff then applied to set aside the AD (‘Setting Aside Application’, encl. 1). The provisions invoked by the Plaintiff were s 15(b) and (d) Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 Act 746] (‘CIPAA’) and O. 69A, rr. 2, 3 and 7 of the Rules of Court 2012RC 2012’).
[3]The Plaintiff also applied to stay the AD pending the determination of the Setting Aside Application pursuant to paragraph 16(1)(a) CIPAA and O. 69A, rr. 2 and 4 RC 2012Stay Application’, encl. 6). An Ad Interim Stay of the AD was granted by the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
