1. Challenge to CIPAA adjudication decision — parallel proceedings initiated to impeach decision and seek damages — application to strike out for abuse of process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 2268
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NIXON KENNEDY KUMBONG, JC
BOILERMASTER SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TANDEX CHEMICALS SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-688-12/2025]
Important Points
A writ action cannot be used to challenge a statutory adjudication decision where the governing Act provides specific, exclusive mechanisms for such challenges. Additionally, the doctrines of res judicata and multiplicity of proceedings prevent litigants from initiating parallel suits on the same subject matter.
Subject
Civil Law - Construction Law
Act Referred
Rules of Court 2012: O.18 r.19(1)(a), O.92 r.4
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012: S.28, S.16
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012: S.28, S.16
Headnote
(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 rule 19(1)(a)-(d) and Order 92 rule 4 - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Sections 16 and 28 - Striking out of action - Res judicata and the extended Henderson doctrine - A party is barred from raising in subsequent proceedings matters that could and should have been brought forward in the earlier action, whether by negligence, inadvertence, or tactical choice (Paras 20-21).
(B) Multiplicity of proceedings - Maintenance of parallel proceedings on identical subject matter is legally impermissible as it risks inconsistent findings and undermines the orderly administration of justice (Paras 29-30).
(C) Statutory framework for challenging adjudication decisions - Challenges to adjudication decisions must be brought through the mechanisms expressly provided by the governing statute, such as applications for stay, applications to set aside enforcement orders, or judicial review; a writ action is not a recognized mechanism and is legally impermissible (Paras 44-46).
Facts of the case:
A party initiated a suit in a lower court to challenge an adjudication decision. Subsequently, the same party commenced a separate writ action in a higher court seeking similar declaratory reliefs and damages arising from the same factual matrix and the same adjudication decision, despite the existence of the earlier proceedings and a pending appeal regarding the enforcement of the decision.
Findings of Court:
The second action is barred by cause of action and issue estoppel, as well as the extended Henderson doctrine. It constitutes an abuse of process through multiplicity of proceedings and fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action because it attempts to impeach a statutory adjudication decision via a procedural route not contemplated by the governing legislation.
Issues: Whether the action is barred by res judicata; whether it constitutes a multiplicity of proceedings and an abuse of process; whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action; and whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: Litigants are prohibited from fragmenting litigation into multiple suits to seek a second opportunity to litigate the same issues. Furthermore, where a statute prescribes specific avenues for challenging a decision, those mechanisms must be followed; collateral proceedings via a writ action are not permissible as they circumvent the statutory scheme.
Result: Application allowed; action struck out in its entirety and dismissed with finality.
(B) Multiplicity of proceedings - Maintenance of parallel proceedings on identical subject matter is legally impermissible as it risks inconsistent findings and undermines the orderly administration of justice (Paras 29-30).
(C) Statutory framework for challenging adjudication decisions - Challenges to adjudication decisions must be brought through the mechanisms expressly provided by the governing statute, such as applications for stay, applications to set aside enforcement orders, or judicial review; a writ action is not a recognized mechanism and is legally impermissible (Paras 44-46).
Facts of the case:
A party initiated a suit in a lower court to challenge an adjudication decision. Subsequently, the same party commenced a separate writ action in a higher court seeking similar declaratory reliefs and damages arising from the same factual matrix and the same adjudication decision, despite the existence of the earlier proceedings and a pending appeal regarding the enforcement of the decision.
Findings of Court:
The second action is barred by cause of action and issue estoppel, as well as the extended Henderson doctrine. It constitutes an abuse of process through multiplicity of proceedings and fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action because it attempts to impeach a statutory adjudication decision via a procedural route not contemplated by the governing legislation.
Issues: Whether the action is barred by res judicata; whether it constitutes a multiplicity of proceedings and an abuse of process; whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action; and whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: Litigants are prohibited from fragmenting litigation into multiple suits to seek a second opportunity to litigate the same issues. Furthermore, where a statute prescribes specific avenues for challenging a decision, those mechanisms must be followed; collateral proceedings via a writ action are not permissible as they circumvent the statutory scheme.
Result: Application allowed; action struck out in its entirety and dismissed with finality.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Petitioner Advocates:Cheong Yuan Rong ,Respondent Advocate: Dinesh Nandrajog
Table of Contents
2. Defendant contends action is res judicata and abuse of process — Plaintiff asserts distinct causes of action and jurisdictional errors. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Parallel suits on identical subject matter risk inconsistent findings — CIPAA provides exclusive statutory mechanisms for challenging decisions — writ actions are impermissible for this purpose. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )
4. Litigants cannot maintain parallel proceedings on the same subject matter — challenges to CIPAA decisions must follow prescribed statutory avenues, not collateral writ actions. (Para 24 , 25 , 31 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 52 , 59 )
5. Striking-out application allowed — action dismissed with finality — costs awarded to defendant. (Para 65 )
6. Does res judicata bar a subsequent action if the party failed to raise certain jurisdictional arguments in an earlier suit?
Yes. Res judicata extends to matters that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which a party, exercising reasonable diligence, could and should have raised earlier, regardless of whether they were actually litigated. (Para 20 , 21 , 25 , 26 )
7. When does the commencement of parallel proceedings constitute an abuse of process?
Multiplicity arises when two suits involve the same parties, subject matter, and issues. Such duplication is abusive as it risks inconsistent outcomes and squanders judicial resources. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 40 )
8. Can a CIPAA adjudication decision be challenged through a writ action?
No. Challenges must be brought through statutory mechanisms: stay applications under s 16, setting aside enforcement orders under s 28, or judicial review in exceptional circumstances. Writ actions are legally impermissible. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
9. Under what circumstances should the court invoke its inherent jurisdiction under O 92 r 4 to strike out a claim?
The court invokes this power to prevent its procedures from being used in an oppressive, duplicative, or inconsistent manner that undermines the orderly administration of justice. (Para 52 , 53 , 59 )
JUDGMENT
(Striking-Out Application - Enclosure 7)
Introduction
[1] This is the defendant's application under O 18 r 19(1)(a)-(d) and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff seeks, through this writ action, to impeach an adjudication decision, nullify an enforcement order, and pursue a catalogue of damages.
[2] As the plaintiff itself pleads, the suit is an attempt to revisit the adjudication decision dated 26 December 2024 and the consequences flowing from it. As stated in the uploaded document, "This application.... invites the Court to consider whether the plaintiff's claim... is one that the law permits to proceed, or whether it is, in truth, a structure erected on foundations already occupied, litigated, and exhausted."
[3] The defendant contends that the plaintiff's action is res judicata, duplicative and a misuse of the Court's process, given the existence of an earlier Sessions Court suit (BLA52-NCC-7304/2025) involving the same parties, the same adjudication decision, and substantially the same reliefs.
[4] The plaintiff resists, asserting that the causes of action differ, that the adjudication decision was tainted by jurisdictional error and that the High Court retains supervisory authority notwithstanding parallel proceedings.
[5] The central question is whether this Court should permit a proceeding that, on close inspection, fractures the unity of litigation into multiple suits, each seeking a second or third bite at the same cherry.
Background Facts
[6] The plaintiff engaged the defendant under two Purchase Orders: (a) 21 October 2019 - OSBL steam-blowing works (RM180,000.00); (b) 27 January 2022 - ISBL steam-blowing works (RM151,200.00).
[7] The OSBL works were carried out between 5 November 2021 and 5 December 2021 and were fully settled, with the final payment made on 29 April 2024. The ISBL works were undertaken in April 2022, completed on 8 September 2022, and were fully prepaid prior to commencement.
[8] On 7 May 2024, the defendant commenced CIPAA Adjudication No AIAC/D/ADJ-5508-2024, claiming RM3,340,000.00 as standby charges. On 26 December 2024, the Adjudicator awarded the defendant RM3,308,000.00 together with costs.
[9] On 22 April 2025, the plaintiff filed Suit 730404 in the Sessions Court seeking, inter alia, declarations relating to the validity of the adjudication decision and damages arising from the same project.
[10] On 23 April 2025, the defendant applied in the High Court to enforce the adjudication decision under s 28 CIPAA. The plaintiff filed a stay application under s 16 CIPAA on 24 June 2025.
[11] On 4 November 2025, the High Court allowed the enforcement application and dismissed the stay application. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on 6 November 2025.
[12] Notwithstanding the pending appeal and Suit 730404, the plaintiff commenced the present action on 2 December 2025, again seeking to impeach the same adjudication decision and claiming damages arising from the same factual matrix.
[13] On 15 January 2026, the defendant filed the present striking-out application. On 16 January 2026, the plaintiff filed an application to consolidate Suit 730404 with this suit. Case management directions were issued on 26 January 2026, with hearing fixed for 30 March 2026.
The Issues
[14] The defendant's striking-out application raises four issues:
1. Whether the present claim is res judicata.
2. Whether the action constitutes a multiplicity of proceedings and an abuse of process.
3. Whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action.
4. Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of process.
Analysis
Res Judicata
[15] Having examined the pleadings in Suit 730404 and Suit 688, it is evident that both actions involve the same parties, arise from the same adjudication decision dated 26 December 2024, and seek substantially overlapping declaratory reliefs.
[16] In Suit 730404, the plaintiff expressly seeks a decla
