Azlan Sulaiman J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]The Plaintiff obtained an Adjudication Decision dated 16.5.2025 (“Adjudication Decision”) under the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012 (“Act”) against a company named Psycon Sdn Bhd (“Psycon”), and now applies under section 30Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012section 30

Salient facts

[2]The Defendant had appointed Psycon as the main contractor for residential development project in Mahkota Hill in Seremban (“Project”).

[3]Subsequently, by a Letter of Award dated 10.12.2021, Psycon had appointed the Plaintiff as subcontractor to supply, deliver to site, install, test and commission cold water sanitary plumbing services (“Works”) for the Project for the contract sum of RM6,728,808.00 (“Subcontract Sum”).

[4]Despite the Plaintiff carrying out the Works to completion, the Plaintiff claimed that the sum of RM1,999,341.47 was still due and owing to it by Psycon. Adjudication proceedings under the Act that the Plaintiff subsequently brought against Psycon resulted in the Adjudication Decision (that was revised for typographical and computational errors). By that Adjudication Decision, Psycon is required to pay to the Plaintiff by 23.5.2025 the sum of RM1,984,615.67, interest on that sum of RM139,800.01, interest at 5% per annum from 23.5.2025 until, full settlement, and costs of RM67.912.86.

[5]To date, Psycon has only paid RM100,000.00 of those sums under the Adjudication Decision to the Plaintiff.

[6]By a Direct Payment Notice dated 11.6.2025 (“Direct Payment Notice”), the Plaintiff requested the Defendant for payment of the balance and, by a further letter dated 30.6.2025 (“Further Letter”), sent the Defendant a copy of the Adjudication Decision that was supposed to have been enclosed with the Direct Payment Notice but inadvertently left out.

[7]The Plaintiff filed this Originating Summons on 23.7.2025 to obtain an order against the Defendant for payment of the balance sums payable by Psycon under the Adjudication Decision (“Plaintiffs Application”). Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks the following relief:

“1 That the abovenamed Defendant be compelled to make direct payment to the Plaintiff in the sum of RM2,092,328.54, being the outstanding amount due and payable to the Plaintiff pursuant to the revised Adjudication Decision dated 16.5.2025 (“Adjudicated Decision”) issued by the Adjudicator Garth Rodney Mccomb, which amount comprises the following:-

a)The sum of RM1,984,615.67 being the adjudicated amount payable to the Plaintiff for the works done;

b)The sum of RM67,912.86 being the costs of the adjudication proceeding, inclusive of the Adjudicator’s fees and expenses as well as AlAC’s administrative fees and expenses;

c)The sum of RM139,800.01 being the interest accrued on the adjudicated amount; and

d)Less RM100,000.00 which has been paid to the Plaintiff to date.

2. That the costs of this OS application, together with all other costs incidental thereto, be borne and paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; and

3. Such other reliefs that this Honourable Court deems fit, just and reasonable.”

[8]In its Affidavit opposing the Plaintiffs Application, the Defendant essentially alleged three grounds for refuting liability under section 30

(i)The Defendant is not liable to make payment to the Plaintiff as there is no contract between it and the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not a party to the adjudication proceedings;

(ii)The Direct Payment Notice is invalid for having omitted to enclose a copy of the Adjudication Decision; and

(iii)No sums are due from the Defendant to Psycon given its claim for LAD of RM18,340,000.00 against Psycon as at 4.8.2025 arising from Psycon’s delay of 446 days in completing the Project.

Analysis and decision

[9]The obvious starting point is section 30

[10]Section 30of the Act provides:

“30. Direct Payment from principal

(1)If a party against whom an adjudication decision was made fails to make payment of the adjudicated amount, the par