Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In the fast-paced world of Malaysian construction, disputes over payments can grind projects to a halt. The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) provides a swift mechanism for resolving these through adjudication. But what happens when an adjudicator steps beyond the boundaries of the payment claim? Can courts intervene and set aside the decision? This is a common question: cases court set aside the adjudication decision on the grounds that the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by determining matters outside the scope of the Payment Claim.
This post dives into the legal landscape, analyzing key cases under CIPAA and drawing analogies from arbitration. While no direct CIPAA precedents show courts setting aside decisions purely for exceeding the payment claim scope, the principles highlight strict jurisdictional limits. Note: This is general information, not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under CIPAA, an adjudicator's authority is tightly confined to the referred dispute, stemming from the payment claim and any valid payment response. Section 15 allows challenges to set aside decisions on limited grounds, including jurisdictional overreach. However, courts typically uphold decisions unless there's clear evidence of excess.
In one key case, an aggrieved party sought to set aside a decision favoring outstanding crane supply payments, alleging the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction, denied natural justice, and lacked impartiality. The court ruled: The Court found that there were no valid grounds presented to set aside the decision; Exyte’s arguments did not demonstrate a lack of jurisdiction or natural justice... The court emphasized that the adjudicator had not exceeded his authority and had considered all material evidence and arguments, ruling that errors claimed were not sufficient for overturning the decision.EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD vs SARENS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD - 2025 MarsdenLR 2845 The originating summons was dismissed, affirming that an adjudicator's decision can only be set aside under specific grounds, which must be substantiated; mere dissatisfaction with the decision does not constitute valid grounds for review.EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD vs SARENS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD - 2025 MarsdenLR 2845
Similarly, in a dispute over interim payments after delays, the main contractor failed to file a payment response, limiting counterclaims. The court refused to set aside: The adjudicator's jurisdiction under CIPAA is limited to claims raised through proper payment responses, and failure to respond precludes counterclaims.BINA PURI CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs HING NYIT ENTERPRISE SDN BHD - 2015 MarsdenLR 1355 No excess jurisdiction was found, as the decision stayed within procedural bounds. BINA PURI CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs HING NYIT ENTERPRISE SDN BHD - 2015 MarsdenLR 1355
These rulings underscore a high threshold: adjudicators may evaluate evidence and arguments within the claim's scope without triggering set-aside.
While no reviewed cases match the exact query—setting aside for determining matters outside the payment claim—some CIPAA decisions have been voided on related jurisdictional flaws. For example, in a subcontractor dispute, the court set aside an adjudication: The Court found that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction due to the late delivery of the adjudication decision and the incorrect application of the CIPAA... The Adjudicator's failure to comply with statutory timelines rendered the decision void.ENCORP ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs KONSORTIUM IPMINES MERZ SDN BHD Here, jurisdiction hinged on CIPAA's applicability to a post-enactment novation agreement, but late issuance was decisive. ENCORP ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs KONSORTIUM IPMINES MERZ SDN BHD
In another, the High Court initially set aside for natural justice breaches (e.g., managing submissions), but this was overturned on appeal: The court found that the adjudicator had acted within his powers and that the High Court had erred in its decision to set aside the adjudication decision... The adjudicator's discretion in managing submissions was appropriate and did not constitute a breach of natural justice.TSR BINA SDN BHD vs SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL This reinforces judicial deference unless flaws are blatant. TSR BINA SDN BHD vs SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL
CIPAA adjudication mirrors arbitration, where exceeding scope is a set-aside ground under Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005) s 37(1)(a)(iv)/(v). Courts may partially set aside if extraneous matters are severable: Grounds for setting aside exist where the tribunal has exceeded the authority by dealing in the award with matters that go beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement or the scope of the issues referred by the parties for resolution... If the tribunal exceeds its authority in respect of some matters only, and its decisions on those matters are severable... the High Court may only set those parts of the award.SUNWAY CREATIVE STONES SDN BHD vs SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2020 MarsdenLR 2185SINERJUTA SDN BHD vs JO ARCHITECTS SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2025 MarsdenLR 1037
Tribunals face similar confines: Tribunal jurisdiction is similarly limited to the dispute so referred... Section 10(4) permits the Tribunal to decide only disputes or points referred to it and matters incidental thereto and the tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference.GENTING MALAYSIA BERHAD vs YB MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA & ANOR - 2021 MarsdenLR 221 Exceeding renders decisions ultra vires, though no CIPAA parallels directly applied this to payment claim scope. GENTING MALAYSIA BERHAD vs YB MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA & ANOR - 2021 MarsdenLR 221
Arbitration precedents warn: The arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding more than what was claimed by the appellants. (From a partnership dispute where the award was set aside for procedural non-compliance and overreach.) Other cases distinguish errors within jurisdiction from excess, allowing set-aside only for the latter.
Adjudicators must not impose new contract terms, but evaluating claims per contract is upheld. EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD vs SARENS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD - 2025 MarsdenLR 2845
To challenge on excess jurisdiction:1. Prove the decision addressed unraised matters (e.g., counterclaims or new terms).2. File timely under CIPAA s 15.3. Demonstrate severability.4. Always file compliant payment responses to preserve rights.
Absent clear excess, expect courts to uphold, emphasizing adjudication's speed over merits review.
For construction firms, understanding these nuances prevents costly missteps. Stay informed on CIPAA evolutions, and seek specialist advice for disputes.
References:1. EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD vs SARENS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD - 2025 MarsdenLR 2845: Core refusal despite excess claim.2. BINA PURI CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs HING NYIT ENTERPRISE SDN BHD - 2015 MarsdenLR 1355: Response limits upheld.3. SUNWAY CREATIVE STONES SDN BHD vs SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2020 MarsdenLR 2185, SINERJUTA SDN BHD vs JO ARCHITECTS SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2025 MarsdenLR 1037: Arbitration scope.4. GENTING MALAYSIA BERHAD vs YB MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA & ANOR - 2021 MarsdenLR 221: Tribunal limits.5. ENCORP ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs KONSORTIUM IPMINES MERZ SDN BHD, TSR BINA SDN BHD vs SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL: CIPAA set-asides on other grounds.
#CIPAA #ConstructionLaw #Adjudication
this Court would be at liberty to set aside the Adjudication Decision on ground of excess of jurisdiction. ... " [22] These pronouncements by our apex Court show that the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction because he had gone outside of the perimeters of what the parties had alleged in the payment claim, adjudication claim#....
" , then this Court would be at liberty to set aside the Adjudication Decision on ground of excess of jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court in a Setting Aside Application cannot review the merits of an adjudication decision and cannot set aside an adjudication decision merely on any one or more of the following grounds: (a)....
, then this Court would be at liberty to set aside the Adjudication Decision on ground of excess of jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court in a Setting Aside Application cannot review the merits of an adjudication decision and cannot set aside an adjudication decision merely on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) a....
, then this Court would be at liberty to set aside the Adjudication Decision on ground of excess of jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court in a Setting Aside Application cannot review the merits of an adjudication decision and cannot set aside an adjudication decision merely on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) a....
this Court would be at liberty to set aside the Adjudication Decision on ground of excess of jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court in a Setting Aside Application cannot review the merits of an adjudication decision and cannot set aside an adjudication decision merely on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) an e....
this Court would be at liberty to set aside the Adjudication Decision on ground of excess of jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court in a Setting Aside Application cannot review the merits of an adjudication decision and cannot set aside an adjudication decision merely on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) an e....
Payment Claim was not served or that it was not expressly stated as a claim made under CIPAA. then this Court would be at liberty to set aside the Adjudication Decision on around of excess of jurisdiction. ... whole Adjudication Decision as in this case, is set aside. ... Improperly Procured Adjudication Decision An aggrieved ....
this Court would be at liberty to set aside the Adjudication Decision on ground of excess of jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court in a Setting Aside Application cannot review the merits of an adjudication decision and cannot set aside an adjudication decision merely on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) an e....
or impartially; or Section 15 provides limited grounds on which the decision of the adjudicator may be set aside. Since an application under a href="../legislationSectionDisplayed.aspx?
It was their case that the over-payment claim was outside the adjudicator's jurisdiction, and that is what they (successfully) urged on the adjudicator. ... It entitles the aggrieved party to apply to the High Court to set aside the adjudication decision based on the limited grounds provided in paras 15(a) to (d) of the CIPAA as follows: Improperly procured adjudication #HL_START....
The learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the respondent workman was engaged for a specific work and for a specific period and after completing the work, the workman has left the employment of the petitioner-management and the management has not terminated the services of the workman as alleged by the respondent-workman. The learned counsel of the petitioner-management further submitted that the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Adjudicator is bad in law and the Industrial Adjudicator exceeded its jurisdiction and reached the wrong conclusion, which need....
If the jurisdiction of the Court is sustained in part that part of the cause of action would fall outside the scope of adjudication. That rationale would be relevant both to a situation where the entirety of the claim lies outside the jurisdiction of the Court and the situation where a part of the cause of action lies outside the jurisdiction of the Court. 30. The Court's attention is also drawn to the case of Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia & Ors. 2013(3) Bom. C.R. 669 in which it has been inter alia held that the objection to jurisdiction can be tak....
(c) That though the appellants had made claim for damages at the rate of Rs.3,800/-sq.ft., the arbitrator has considered the claim at Rs.5,000/-. The arbitrator had thus exceeded his jurisdiction and had decided contrary to the submission made by the parties for adjudication. (d) That the alternate award given by the learned arbitrator is totally perverse and contrary to law and could not be implemented in any manner whatsoever. The learned district judge was right in setting aside such perverse award.
In the background of the decisions of the Apex Court, when we look at the award, it is evident that having framed the procedures for considering the various issues including the one on its jurisdiction point, the Tribunal, however, had not adhered to the manner of dealing with the issues, particularly with reference to the jurisdiction, i.e, arbitrability as well as limitation in terms of Clauses 27.1, 27.3, 27.4 and 27.5 of GCC. Thus, matters which are excepted by the parties from the scope of arbitration, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and any adjudication on th....
However, a distinction in such a case must be drawn between an error within the jurisdiction and an error in excess of jurisdiction. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 (para 54 page 736) the Arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at a conclusion; (ix) An award may be remitted or set aside on the ground that the Arbitrator making it had exceeded his jurisdiction and evidence of matters not appearing on the face of award will be admitted in order to establish whether or not the jurisdiction has been exceeded, because the nature of the dispute is something which has to be d....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
