Anand Ponnudurai J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012

(hereinafter referred to as “CIPAA 2012”) came into force on 15^th April 2014 and was enacted to inter-alia facilitate regular and timely payment, to provide a mechanism for speedy dispute resolution through adjudication, to provide remedies for the recovery of payment in the construction industry and to provide for connected and incidental matters.

[2]With the advent of adjudication proceedings, this then would inevitably lead to an adjudication decision by an appointed adjudicator. Once an adjudication decision is handed down, the unsuccessful party may apply to the High Court pursuant to Section 15CIPAA 2012Section 16CIPAA 2012

[3]In addition, if the adjudication decision orders the payment of money and if the said awarded sum remains unpaid, the successful party may file an application pursuant to Section 28CIPAA 2012

[4]The procedure to set aside under Section 15CIPAA 2012Section 16CIPAA 2012Section 28CIPAA 2012Order 69A of the Rules of Court 2012“ROC 2012”).

[5]In this case, the parties had a dispute over payment due from Jonah Bina Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as “Jonah”) which led to Proventus Bina Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as “Proventus”) initiating adjudication proceedings against Jonah.

[6]Pursuant to such adjudication proceedings, the learned Adjudicator had rendered a decision dated 1^st April 2024 in favour of Proventus and ordered Jonah to pay Proventus the adjudicated sum of RM3.016,099.44 as well as interest and costs (hereinafter referred to as the “said adjudication decision”).

[7]Since such payment was not made, Proventus commenced its application to enforce pursuant to Section 28CIPAA 2012“OS 8”) wherein Proventus was the Plaintiff and Jonah was the Defendant.

[8]Not long thereafter, Jonah commenced proceedings the following month via Originating Summons No. PA-24C-10-05/2024 (hereinafter referred to as “OS 10”) applying to set aside the said adjudication decision pursuant to Section 15(b) and (d)CIPAA 2012Section 16CIPAA 2012to be staved pending the decision of a suit between parties that had been commenced by Jonah in 2024 via Suit No. PA-22C-1-06/2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the writ action”).

[9]Parties had thereafter agreed during a case management that all three matters be heard simultaneously i.e. OS 8 as well as Enclosures 1 and 6 in OS 10. Parties had thereafter filed their respective written submissions and having read the same and after hearing learned Counsel, I decided as follows:

a. Jonah’s application in Enclosure 1 of OS 10 to set aside be dismissed;

b. Jonah’s application in Enclosure 6 of OS 10 to stay the adjudication decision be dismissed; and

c. consequently, allowed Proventus’s application to enforce the adjudication decision as per Enclosure 1 of OS.

[10]Jonah has filed an appeal against all three decisions above. As such, I will hereinbelow set out the salient background facts, the applicable law and the reasons for my decision in dismissing OS 10 and allowing OS 8.

[11]The background facts as gleaned from the various affidavits filed are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows.

[12]Pursuant to a Letter of Award (Reference No. PBSB/Quinton/MBW/LA/002) dated 5^th August 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the main contract”), Prisma Bumiraya Sdn. Bhd. appointed Jonah for the following project (hereinafter referred to as “the Sungai Pinang Project”):

“Cadangan Mendirikan 1 Blok Rumah Pangsa Mampu Milik 16-Tingkat (378 Unit) Termasuk Tempat Letak Kenderaan, Kemudahan Masyarakat dan 1 Tingkat Separa Bawah Tanah DiAtas Lot-Lot 94, 95 & Petak A (Sebahagian Lot 378 & 380), Jalan Sungai Pinang, Mukim E, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang Untuk Tetuan Prisma Bumiraya Sdn. Bhd.”

[13]By the Letter of Award (Reference No. JBSB/Quinton/LA/004) dated 23^rd February 2022 (previously referenced as JBSB/Quinton/LA/003 before being changed to JBSB/Quinton/LA/004 due to the existence o