FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
JACK-IN PILE (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of appeals based on common issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. introduction of factual background regarding construction contracts. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court’s examination of prior high court findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 22) |
| 4. discussion on prospective vs retrospective application of the cipaa. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. interpretation and legislative intent behind the cipaa. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. legislation affects existing rights unless explicitly stated otherwise. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. cipaa is declared to apply prospectively. (Para 21 , 23) |
[1] The present appeals have been brought by the appellant in light of the Court of Appeal's decision given on 22 February 2018 in which the respondent's appeals were allowed. In the appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal, both the appellant and the respondent herein were the respondent and the appellant respectively. We heard these two appeals together given the commonality of issues in the questions of law raised herein for our determination. In simple terms, the common issue raised herein begs the question of whether the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("the CIPAA" for short) which came into force o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.