Back
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
ALIZA SULAIMAN, J
TUV SUD (M) Sdn Bhd – Appellant
Versus
Intisari Mulia Engineering Sdn Bhd and another summon – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court consented to hear applications from both parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. detail of cause papers filed in the adjudication process. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. grounds for intisari's challenge to the adjudicator's decision. (Para 18 , 19 , 22) |
| 4. existence of a construction contract in writing is vital for adjudication. (Para 23 , 29 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. jurisdiction challenges may be raised during or post adjudication. (Para 36 , 52 , 58) |
| 6. the adjudicator ensured compliance with natural justice. (Para 63 , 66) |
| 7. court allowed enforcement application as conditions met. (Para 68 , 70) |
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1]The Court heard the following applications with the consent of the parties:
(a)the application by TUV SUD (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (‘TUV’) pursuant to s 28Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746] (‘CIPAA’)O.S. No. 129’) to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 27.5.2022 (‘AD’) by the learned Adjudicator, Mr. Sivabalan Sankaran (‘Adjudicator’) (encl. 1; ‘Enforcement Application’); and
(b)the application by Intisari Mulia Engineering Sdn Bhd (‘Intisari’) pursuant to s 15(b), (c) and/ or (d)CIPAAO.
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
