JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

[1] There are three applications before this Court , arising from 2 suits:

(a) The Plaintiff's application to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 17 September 2025 delivered by Adjudicator Tan Yee Sin (AIAC Ref: AIAC/D/ADJ-5992-2025) pursuant to s 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746] ("CIPAA") ((Enclosure 1) in Suit: JA-24C-4-10/2025);

(b) The Plaintiff's application for a stay of execution of the said Adjudication Decision pursuant to s 16(1)(a) CIPAA (encl 5) in Suit: JA-24C-4-10/2025); and

(c) The Defendant's application for enforcement of the Adjudication Decision pursuant to s 28 CIPAA ((Enclosure 1) in Suit: JA-24C-6-11/2025).

[2] For ease of reference I'll refer to the parties as they are in Suit: JA-24C-4-10/2025.

[3] Parties agreed for the matter to be heard simultaneously. Both parties have filed their respective written submissions and bundles of authorities and orally submitted before this Court on two specific issues, namely:

(a) The effect of the Defendant's commencement of arbitration on the Stay Application; and

(b) The lapse of time between the accrual of payment and the commencement of enforcement, being matters which the Plaintiff submitted were not ventilated in the written submissions and which were raised in rebuttal of the Defendant's reply submission.

The Court , having considered the same, now delivers its decision.

[4] The Defendant, CTL Bored Pile & Machinery Sdn Bhd, was appointed by the Plaintiff, S.P. Mulia Sdn Bhd, as sub-contractor for piling works for a project known as 'Laluan Alternatif Menghubungkan Jalan Parit Jalil (J126) dan Jalan Peserai (FT005), Batu Pahat, Johor' pursuant to a Letter of Award dated 27 March 2018.

[5] The Defendant carried out the works but was not fully paid. On 25 March 2025, the Defendant served a Payment Claim under the CIPAA. The Plaintiff did not serve any payment response. The Defendant then issued a Notice of Adjudication on 25 April 2025. The matter was referred to adjudication before Adjudicator Tan Yee Sin (AIAC Ref: AIAC/D/ADJ-5992-2025).

[6] On 17 September 2025, the Adjudicator delivered her decision ordering the Plaintiff to pay:

(a) The adjudicated sum of RM83,153.77;

(b) Interest at 5% per annum from 2 September 2019 until full settlement; and

(c) Adjudication costs of RM34,961.60.

[7] The Plaintiff filed the Setting Aside Application (encl 1) on 10 October 2025 under s 15(b) and (d) CIPAA and the Stay Application (encl 5) on 13 October 2025 under s 16(1)(a) CIPAA in Suit No 4 and Defendant filed the application for Execution of the Adjudication Order dated 17 September 2025 in Suit No 6.

[8] I deal first with encl 5. The Plaintiff seeks a stay of execution of the Adjudication Decision pending disposal of the Setting Aside Application.

[9] Since both the Setting Aside Application and Stay Application were fixed for hearing together today, the Stay Application is, in my view, nugatory. The purpose of a stay under s 16(1)(a) CIPAA is to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the setting aside application. Where both applications are heard and determined simultaneously, there is nothing to stay pending.

[10] I should also briefly address the Plaintiff's preliminary objection that the Defendant did not file a separate Affidavit in Reply specific to the Stay Application and that the matters set out in encl 6 must therefore be treated as admitted on the principle in Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Berhad; [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 CLJ 609; [1995] 1 AMR 622. In light of my finding that the Stay Application is nugatory by reason of the simultaneous disposal of the Setting Aside Application, it is unnecessary for me to determine this objection.

[11] I would, however, observe in passing that the Plaintiff's reliance on Ng Hee Thoong goes only to factual averments and not to questions of law. The matters which would in