Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
UZMA ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs KHAN CO LTD & OTHER CASES - High Court
"], ["Granstep Development Sdn Bhd vs Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd and other - High Court
"].UZMA ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs KHAN CO LTD & OTHER CASES - High Court
"], ["Granstep Development Sdn Bhd vs Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd and other - High Court
"].Several cases affirm that the court’s power to grant an unconditional stay is clear from the statutory wording, and courts have exercised this discretion based on the specifics of each case, including errors in adjudication or justice considerations ["
UZMA ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs KHAN CO LTD & OTHER CASES - High Court
"], ["Granstep Development Sdn Bhd vs Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd and other - High Court
"].Circumstances for granting stay under s 16(1)(b) - Main points and insights:
ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD vs ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL - 2024 MarsdenLR 860
"], ["ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD vs ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS - Court Of Appeal
"], ["EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD & ORS vs PERUSAHAAN RADZMIN SDN BHD & ORS - High Court
"].ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD vs ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL - 2024 MarsdenLR 860
"], ["ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD vs ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS - Court Of Appeal
"], ["EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD & ORS vs PERUSAHAAN RADZMIN SDN BHD & ORS - High Court
"].Courts have emphasized that the discretion to stay is to be exercised sparingly and based on serious grounds, such as errors in adjudication or the need to prevent injustice ["
UZMA ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs KHAN CO LTD & OTHER CASES - High Court
"], ["ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD vs ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL - 2024 MarsdenLR 860
"], ["EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD & ORS vs PERUSAHAAN RADZMIN SDN BHD & ORS - High Court
"].Analysis and Conclusion:
UZMA ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs KHAN CO LTD & OTHER CASES - High Court
"], ["Granstep Development Sdn Bhd vs Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd and other - High Court
"].References:- ["
ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD vs ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL - 2024 MarsdenLR 860
"]- ["ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD vs ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS - Court Of Appeal
"]- ["EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD & ORS vs PERUSAHAAN RADZMIN SDN BHD & ORS - High Court
"]- ["UZMA ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs KHAN CO LTD & OTHER CASES - High Court
"]- ["Granstep Development Sdn Bhd vs Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd and other - High Court
"]
In the fast-paced world of construction in Malaysia, payment disputes can grind projects to a halt. A key tool for resolving these is the , particularly Section 16, which allows parties to seek a stay of an . But what about unconditional stays—those without strings attached like deposits? Clients often ask: Get me cases on court granted of adjudication decision under section 16 CIPAA 2012. This post dives into the case law, revealing why unconditional stays are rare and what courts typically require instead. Note: This is general information, not legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 16 provides a lifeline for parties facing enforcement of an AD. It states:
Stay of adjudication decision16(1) A party may apply to the for a stay of an adjudication decision in the following circumstances:(a) an application to under s 15 has been made; or(b) the subject matter of the adjudication decision is pending final determination by arbitration or the court.(2) The may grant a stay of the adjudication decision or order the adjudicated amount or part of it to be deposited with the or make any other order as it thinks fit.
This balances CIPAA's ethos with protections against injustice. Importantly, no are needed beyond the statutory triggers, unlike pre-CIPAA regimes.
However, courts wield wide discretion under s 16(2). Full, unconditional stays are exceptional; , like depositing funds with the , are preferred to safeguard cash flow while mitigating risks.
Malaysian courts draw heavily from the landmark Federal Court decision in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Sdn Bhd2018 2 MLJ 22. Core tenets include:
These principles ensure fairness without undermining CIPAA's objectives.
Interim stays are more routinely granted here. In Rosha & Maju cases, the court issued an interim stay pending s 15 disposal, with consolidated hearings by consent.
Similarly, in Kemas Maju-related proceedings (OS No BA-24C-56-12/2024), the applicant sought stay under s 16(1)(a) and (b) alongside set-aside, but the court dismissed both, finding no or jurisdiction issues in the AD for RM1,389,572.92. Quote: Kemas Maju has filed this OS moving this court pursuant to s 16(1)(a) and (b) of the CIPAA ... to set aside or stay the AD pursuant to ss 15 and 16. Enforcement proceeded.
In Alpha's Stay Application, s 16(1)(a) was noted but set-aside dismissed.
Unconditional stays are elusive. In Pinnacle v DSG, a conditional stay was granted pending arbitration, requiring payment into a stakeholder account for the large sum. The court stressed: no merits review, irrelevance of finances, and protection of interests.
Contrast Wabina, where stay was denied despite arbitration; no special circumstances shown. Enforcement succeeded.
In another dispute, the court dismissed s 16(1)(b) stay pending civil suit (WA-22C-17-03/2025), noting: Section 16 (1)(b) of the Act provides: 'A party may apply to the for a stay of an adjudication decision in the following circumstances: (b) The subject matter of an adjudication decision is pending final determination...' No clear error or special circumstances proven.
Geo Hill v Pesat Bumi upheld the AD (RM4,204,613.05), dismissing s 16(1)(b) for unsubstantiated fraud/ claims: Adjudication decisions possess under the Act - The threshold for challenging such decisions is high.
ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd appeals clarified: post-s 28 enforcement, s 16(1)(b) unavailable. Federal Court restored order, criticizing Court of Appeal's deviation from View Esteem.
In an unspecified appeal, stay denied for lacking grounds, but funds held as stakeholder monies: No importation of into s 16; s 16(2) enables flexible orders.
Swaja's OS for stay/set-aside under s 16 failed due to poor arguments.
Courts prioritize cash flow protection:
Trends show evolution toward flexible s 16(2) orders, not unconditional relief. In Pesat Bumi, courts reiterated: clear error must be demonstrated for a stay, which was not established.
Allegations of unfairness must be evidenced; merits aren't re-litigated.
Unconditional stays under s 16 CIPAA 2012 are not the norm—courts favor conditional measures to honor while preventing abuse. Success hinges on statutory triggers, View Esteem compliance, and strong evidence. Key takeaways:
Construction pros should document finances and AD flaws meticulously. This framework keeps disputes moving efficiently. For tailored advice, engage counsel familiar with CIPAA jurisprudence.
#CIPAA2012 #ConstructionAdjudication #Section16Stay
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) in particular whether a stay can be granted under s 16(1)(b) CIPAA after the adjudication decision is enforced under s 28 CIPAA as an Order of the Court. ... pursuant to s 16(1)(b) of the CIPAA 2012. ... A stay can be granted provided the thresho....
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA").
Should such a stay be granted but Perusahaan Radzmin appeals against that stay and succeeds, it should not have to revisit an application to enforce the Adjudication Decision. ... [46] Section 16(1)(b) of the Act provides: "A party may apply to the High court for a stay of an adjudication decision in the following circumstances: (b) The subject matter of an adjudication #HL_STAR....
The court's power to grant an Unconditional Stay is clear from the words of s 16(2) CIPAA (High court may grant a stay of the adjudication decision). ... Stay OS [39] I will now decide the Stay OS on the assumption that the Adjudicator did not exceed her jurisdiction under s 15(d) read with ss 2 and 27(1) CIPAA. [40]Section 16 CIPAA provides as....
Stay of Execution - Suit 56 ( Section 16 of CIPAA 2012) [68] Kemas Maju has filed this OS moving this court pursuant to s 16(1)(a) and (b) of the CIPAA ... hereinabove to set aside or stay the AD pursuant to ss 15 and 16 of the CIPAA 2012 respectively. ... OS No BA-24C-56-12/2024 (Suit 56) was filed by Kemas Maju for Stay of Execution of the AD pursuant to s #H....
stay the Adjudication Decision under s 16(1)(b) of the Act pending the disposal of Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-22C-17-03/2025 ("Civil Suit"). ... [60] Section 16 (1)(b) of the Act provides: "A party may apply to the High Court for a stay of an adjudication decision in the following circumstances: (b) The subject matter of an adjudication ... Although there can be ....
[60] Section 16(1)(b) of the Act provides: "A party may apply to the High Court for a stay of an adjudication decision in the following circumstances: (b) The subject matter of an adjudication decision is pending final determination by ... Bina Puri Holdings Berhad; [2018] 2 MLJ 22; [2019] 5 CLJ 479; [2017] 8 AMR 167, the Federal Court held that a Court may exercise its discretion to grant a stay#H....
Although there can be no doubt the stay of an adjudication decision can be allowed, the cases as highlighted above laid down serious requirements for the same to succeed. ... [39] Section 16 (1)(b) of the Act provides: "A party may apply to the High Court for a stay of an adjudication ... In agreeing with the High Court and the Court of Appeal, Zawawi Salleh FCJ (who delivered the judgment of th....
Arbitration Stay Application [70]Section 16(1)(b)of the Act provides: “A party may apply to the High Court for a stay of an adjudication decision in the following circumstances: (b) The ... The CIPAA 2012 allows parties to take their grievances to the High Court prior to the adjudication process, concurrent with the adjudication application and even after the adjudicat....
Stay Of Execution Of The AD - Pursuant To Section 16 Of The CIPAA 2012 [48] Although Swaja had moved this court via this Originating Summons pursuant to s 16 of the CIPAA 2012, however, no argument has been put forth by it. ... OS No BA-24C-45-10/2024 (Setting Aside OS) was filed by Swaja to set aside the AD pursuant to s 15(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the CIPAA 2012 and/or to stay t....
He would submit that in any case, there was no reason even to direct the petitioners to deposit the amount of interest at an exorbitant rate of 12% and further seeking a security for the remaining amount when by virtue of Order XXVII Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure since the petitioners being the State Government. 8. The learned A.G.P. would therefore submit that it is a clear case of the award being obtained by inducement within the meaning of second proviso which is recently inserted on 11.03.2021 to Sub Section 3 of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Consequently, the low....
8. The learned A.G.R would therefore submit that it is a clear case of the award being obtained by inducement within the meaning of second proviso which is recently inserted on 11.03.2021 to Sub Section 3 of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. He would submit that in any case, there was no reason even to direct the petitioners to deposit the amount of interest at an exorbitant rate of 12% and further seeking a security for the remaining amount when by virtue of Order XXVII Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure since the petitioners being the State Government. Consequently the lower....
2. The case was taken up for admission on 16.06.2016 and interim stay was granted by this Court. "The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 313 of 2015.
However, upon the assessment of occupation charges by the executing court, the stay granted herein will become conditional on the payment of such occupation charges as per the schedule and in terms of the period for which the payment is to be made, both to be decided by the executing court. The executing court, however, is directed to assess the appropriate occupation charges as condition for such stay, upon hearing both sides and permitting both sides to produce documentary and other evidence, if necessary, to establish the appropriate occupation charges, positively within one month from th....
Case was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for amendment of the petition annexing the order dated 27.01.2004 by virtue of which cognizance of offences under Sections 406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code was taken on receipt of charge sheet, the order dated 20.05.2011 by virtue of which the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was rejected and the order dated 07.09.2013 by virtue of which charges were framed by the learned trial Judge. Case No.28 of 2012 granted interim stay of further proceeding of the case before the trial Judge.#HL_E....
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
