Azlan Sulaiman J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]These two Originating Summons are linked by an Adjudication Decision dated 21.5.2025 in Adjudication Proceedings Ref No: AIAC/D/ADJ-5750-2024 (“Adjudication Decision”) that Greencon Resources Sdn Bhd (“Greencon”) had obtained against Exyte Malaysia Sdn Bhd (“Exyte”) under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 (“Act”).

[2]By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-100-05/2025 (“OS 100”), Greencon is seeking an order under section 28

[3]By Originating Summons No: WA-24C-101-5/2025 (“OS 101”), Exyte is seeking to set the Adjudication Decision aside under sections 15(b)15(d)

[4]By a Consent Order dated 12.6.2025 (“Interim Stay Order”), Exyte and Greencon had amicably agreed to an interim stay of the Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of OS 101, by depositing the sum of RM9,507,494.94 payable under the Adjudication Decision with the Asian International Arbitration Centre (“AIAC”) pursuant to section 16(2)

[5]However, Exyte has since filed an additional application in Enclosure 118 in OS 101 under section 16(1)(b)

[6]As a matter of prudence and practicality, I decided to hear both Originating Summonses together. I will decide Exyte’s application in OS 101 to set the Adjudication Decision aside first and then only OS 100; if the Adjudication Decision is set aside, then there will be nothing left to enforce or stay. If I dismiss Exyte’s application in OS 101 to set the Adjudication Decision aside and allow OS 100, it is only then that I will decide the Arbitration Stay Application.

Salient background facts

[7]By a Letter of Award dated 26.1.2022 (“LOA”), Exyte had appointed Greencon to carry out certain works under Package “C08A02 -Concrete Topping - FAB and APB” (“Works”) for the construction project they call the Intel Pelican Project (“Project”). The contractual terms between them were contained in the LOA and also in the General Conditions of Contract (“GCOC”) and the Special Conditions of Contract (“SCOC”).

[8]In March 2024, Greencon exited the Project, with Exyte left to attend to the completion of the Works, including the outstanding rectification works. On 5.2.2025, Exyte formally terminated Greencon’s appointment, and on 27.5.2025 Exyte issued the Certificate of Termination Value for the Contract for the Works.

[9]On 25.11.2024, Greencon issued a Payment Claim under the Act to Exyte for payment of the sum of RM17,203,058.39 (“Payment Claim”), made up of alleged sums payable under Progress Claim No. 29 for RM15,960,728.75 for its final progress claim for work done (“Progress Payment Claim No. 25”) and RM2.001,579.65 being 50% of the retention sums held by Exyte (“Retention Sum Claim”).

[10]In the resulting the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator only partially allowed Greencon’s claims, in that Exyte is to pay to Greencon:

(i)RM7,445,515.29 for Progress Payment Claim No. 25;

(ii)RM2.001,579.65 for the Retention Sum Claim;

(iii)Interest and costs.

[11]In the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator had also dismissed Exyte’s, including for back charges / deductions and LAD totaling RM16,098,542.31.

[12]Greencon filed OS 100 and Exyte filed OS 101 on 30.5.2025.

[13]Exyte filed the Arbitration Stay Application on 26.8.2025.

OS 101

[14]Setting an adjudication decision aside is under section 15of the Act. This section 15Section 15

“15. Improperly procured adjudication decision

An aggrieved party may apply to the High Court to set aside an adjudication decision on one or more of the following grounds:

(a)the adjudication decision was improperly procured through fraud or bribery;

(b)there has been a denial of natural justice;

(c)the adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially; or

(d)the adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction.”

[15]Though an applicant may apply to set an adjudication decision aside under more than one of those limbs, each limb is distinct and separate, with their own characteristics and requirements. Suffice to say that none of them are synonymou