Wong Kian Kheong J:

JUDGMENT

(2 Originating Summonses)

A. Introduction

[1]These two originating summonses (OS) concern the same plaintiff company (Plaintiff) and defendant company (Defendant).

[2]The 2 OS are heard together and raise the following two novel questions regarding s 30Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012CIPAA):

(1)does the Defendant have the evidential burden to prove that no debt is “due” or “payable” by the Defendant to Dekinjaya Builder Sdn. Bhd. (DB) under s 30CIPAAAD’s) obtained by the Plaintiff against DB?; and

(2)whether should the court exercise its discretion to lift the corporate veil of the Defendant and DB to reveal that both companies are controlled by one family and hence, the Defendant has a self-serving motive not to pay the Plaintiff under s 30CIPAA

B. Background

[3]The Defendant was an employer of a construction project (Project).

[4]DB had been appointed by the Defendant as the main contractor for the Project.

[5]DB had appointed the Plaintiff as a nominated sub-contractor for the supply, delivery and installation of steel structure and reinforced concrete works in the Project (Works).

[6]DB did not pay the Plaintiff for the Works. Hence, the