Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
View Esteem (2018) remains authoritative on adjudicator's broad jurisdiction and strict stay thresholds under CIPAA; no reversal, but 2021 cases (Pancaran Prima, Master Mulia) provide latest refinements on arbitration-linked issues, deeming unsubstantiated claims baseless. Courts consistently caution against expansive use ["ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs JKP SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL - Federal Court"] ["ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs JKP SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL - Federal Court"] ["ENCORP ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs KONSORTIUM IPMINES MERZ SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal"]
In the fast-paced world of construction disputes in Malaysia, the View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Holdings Bhd2018 2 MLJ 22 decision remains a cornerstone. Parties often ask: what's the latest update on the issue raised in the View Esteem CIPAA case? This blog post dives into the enduring principles from this Federal Court ruling under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), recent affirmations by courts, and important limitations, helping contractors, developers, and legal professionals stay informed.
The View Esteem case addressed critical aspects of CIPAA enforcement. It clarified the Federal Court's discretion under section 16(1)(b) CIPAA to stay adjudication decisions pending litigation or arbitration. Additionally, it interpreted section 41 CIPAA's saving provision, distinguishing commenced proceedings from pending ones. These holdings have guided adjudication enforcement ever since, with no subsequent overruling. Courts continue to apply them consistently, ensuring cash flow protection for claimants while balancing respondent rights. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161SUNSHINE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs MARVELANE SDN BHD & OTHER CASES - 2022 MarsdenLR 1413ALPHA GALAXY SDN BHD vs EURO DESTAR (M) SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2020 MarsdenLR 2230ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs SAVELITE ENGINEERING SDN BHD & OTHER CASES - 2021 MarsdenLR 3027RITMA HEBAT SDN BHD vs KESUTRA SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2022 MarsdenLR 905
The Federal Court, led by Zulkefli PCA, established a strict two-ground test for stays:- First Ground: A clear and unequivocal error in the adjudication decision. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161ALPHA GALAXY SDN BHD vs EURO DESTAR (M) SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2020 MarsdenLR 2230RITMA HEBAT SDN BHD vs KESUTRA SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2022 MarsdenLR 905- Second Ground: Where justice requires a stay. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161ALPHA GALAXY SDN BHD vs EURO DESTAR (M) SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2020 MarsdenLR 2230ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs SAVELITE ENGINEERING SDN BHD & OTHER CASES - 2021 MarsdenLR 3027
As stated in View Esteem at 79 and 82: the Court may exercise its discretion under s 16(1)(b) CIPAA to grant a stay of the enforcement of an adjudication decision when: (1) there is a clear and unequivocal error in the adjudication decision 1st Ground (View Esteem); or (2) it is just for the Court to grant a stay of the execution of the adjudication decision 2nd Ground (View Esteem). MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161ALPHA GALAXY SDN BHD vs EURO DESTAR (M) SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2020 MarsdenLR 2230
Later cases affirm this at various paragraphs, such as 65, 66, 74, or 79, 82, allowing stays only pending disposal of litigation or arbitration. SUNSHINE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs MARVELANE SDN BHD & OTHER CASES - 2022 MarsdenLR 1413ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs SAVELITE ENGINEERING SDN BHD & OTHER CASES - 2021 MarsdenLR 3027RITMA HEBAT SDN BHD vs KESUTRA SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2022 MarsdenLR 905 One High Court rejected a stay application, noting: there is no clear and unequivocal error in AD (PCG-MKP). Hence, MKP cannot rely on the 1st Ground (View Esteem). MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161
Recent decisions reinforce concurrent proceedings. For instance, courts have upheld adjudication alongside arbitration under sections 15, 16, 28, and 37 CIPAA, dismissing set-aside and stay applications while allowing enforcement. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES The High Court in one case stated: Clear error has not been defined... However in light of the caveat of caution mentioned in the View Esteem case. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES This underscores the high threshold, with no breach of natural justice where parties had submission opportunities. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES
View Esteem narrowly interpreted section 41: 'commenced' in s 41 of CIPAA is not the same as the word 'pending' which is not found in s 41... The words 'commenced' and 'before' as found in s 41 of CIPAA, therefore have distinct meanings and not equated with the word 'pending' found elsewhere in CIPAA. GOGUNG FUSION RESTAURANT (KLCC) SDN BHD & ORS vs SURIA KLCC SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 660
This excludes pending claims from savings, preserving CIPAA adjudication for disputes not commenced before CIPAA's operation. It differentiates from section 16(1)(b) or 37(1), promoting swift payment resolutions. GOGUNG FUSION RESTAURANT (KLCC) SDN BHD & ORS vs SURIA KLCC SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 660
While View Esteem principles hold strong, they do not apply universally:- Pre-CIPAA Contracts: For contracts before CIPAA enforcement (e.g., 17 April 2012), no adjudication jurisdiction exists per Jack-In Pile and Ireka Engineering. One court held: Having perused over judgment of View Esteem Sdn Bhd (supra) I did not find that it dealt with whether it is applicable to cases before the date of coming into force of CIPAA 2012... As such, I am of the view that View Esteem Sdn Bhd is inapplicable. LEMBAGA PELABUHAN JOHOR vs KELISA MURNI SDN BHD - 2020 MarsdenLR 2316 The adjudication decision was thus unenforceable: I find that the Adjudication Decision cannot stand.
No broad exceptions erode the two-ground test; stays fail without clear error, especially in factual disputes. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161 Section 41's strict wording may still allow CIPAA adjudication despite litigation. GOGUNG FUSION RESTAURANT (KLCC) SDN BHD & ORS vs SURIA KLCC SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 660
In concurrent arbitration scenarios, adjudicators retain jurisdiction if claims qualify under CIPAA, with courts dismissing jurisdictional challenges. For example: The court affirmed that adjudication under CIPAA can proceed concurrently with arbitration, and the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction, ensuring natural justice was upheld. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES Similar rulings emphasize: adjudication and arbitration can occur concurrently. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASESTENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES
These updates highlight CIPAA's pro-payment stance, with View Esteem as the guiding light.
This analysis draws from reported decisions and is for informational purposes only. Construction disputes vary; consult qualified legal counsel for advice tailored to your situation. Stay updated, as CIPAA jurisprudence evolves.
References:1. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161: Applies two-ground test, rejects stay.2. SUNSHINE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs MARVELANE SDN BHD & OTHER CASES - 2022 MarsdenLR 1413: Cites 65,66,74 on discretion.3. ALPHA GALAXY SDN BHD vs EURO DESTAR (M) SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2020 MarsdenLR 2230: Reiterates 79,82 grounds.4. LEMBAGA PELABUHAN JOHOR vs KELISA MURNI SDN BHD - 2020 MarsdenLR 2316: Limits to pre-CIPAA.5. ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs SAVELITE ENGINEERING SDN BHD & OTHER CASES - 2021 MarsdenLR 3027: Affirms 79,82.6. GOGUNG FUSION RESTAURANT (KLCC) SDN BHD & ORS vs SURIA KLCC SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 660: s 41 details.7. RITMA HEBAT SDN BHD vs KESUTRA SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - 2022 MarsdenLR 905: First ground application.8. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES, TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES, TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES, TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD & OTHER CASES: Concurrent proceedings, clear error caveats.
#CIPAA #ViewEsteem #ConstructionLaw
This was discussed in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Whether the dicta in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... (ii) Whether the dicta in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... This had also been acknowledged by this Court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... It is remained baseless contentious issue raised by the respondent. 80. Premise on the above, I am of the considered view that the respondent raised this....
This was discussed in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Whether the dicta in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... (ii) Whether the dicta in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... In this regard are the two latest decisions of this Court on this same issue raised in arbitration - Pancaran Prima Sdn Bhd v. Iswarabena Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal, [2021] 1 MLJ 1 and Master Mulia Sdn Bhd v. ... This had also been acknowledged by this Court in View #....
We are guided by the case of View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... [65] Next and more importantly, we are of the view that the issue relating to quantum meruit as raised and submitted by the Appellant's counsel are matters pertaining to the merits and finding of facts by the Adjudicator, for which are matters we are not to dwell ... This is unlike what happened in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Holdings Berhad and Mecomb Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. ... In our #HL_ST....
and void (see View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd And Another Case, [2017] 7 AMR 887 at para 71 and View Esteem (supra, at para 17, p 468). ... Spring Energy Sdn Bhd, [2020] 7 AMR 147 at p 5, the High Court stated as follows as regards the View Esteem case: "[17] Clear error has not been defined. ... However in light of the caveat of caution mentioned in the View Esteem case#HL....
and void (see View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd And Another Case, [2017] 7 AMR 887 at para 71 and View Esteem (supra, at para 17, p 468). ... Spring Energy Sdn Bhd, [2020] 7 AMR 147 at p 5, the High Court stated as follows as regards the View Esteem case: "[17] Clear error has not been defined. ... However in light of the caveat of caution mentioned in the View Esteem case#HL....
and void (see View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd And Another Case, [2017] 7 AMR 887 at para 71 and View Esteem (supra, at para 17, p 468). ... Spring Energy Sdn Bhd, [2020] 7 AMR 147 at p 5, the High Court stated as follows as regards the View Esteem case: "[17] Clear error has not been defined. ... However in light of the caveat of caution mentioned in the View Esteem case#HL....
and void (see View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd And Another Case, [2017] 7 AMR 887 at para 71 and View Esteem (supra, at para 17, p 468). ... Spring Energy Sdn Bhd, [2020] 7 AMR 147 at p 5, the High Court stated as follows as regards the View Esteem case: "[17] Clear error has not been defined. ... However in light of the caveat of caution mentioned in the View Esteem case#HL....
and void (see View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd And Another Case, [2017] 7 AMR 887 at para 71 and View Esteem (supra, at para 17, p 468). ... Spring Energy Sdn Bhd, [2020] 7 AMR 147 at p 5, the High Court stated as follows as regards the View Esteem case: "[17] Clear error has not been defined. ... However in light of the caveat of caution mentioned in the View Esteem case#HL....
and void (see View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd And Another Case, [2017] 7 AMR 887 at para 71 and View Esteem (supra, at para 17, p 468). ... Spring Energy Sdn Bhd, [2020] 7 AMR 147 at p 5, the High Court stated as follows as regards the View Esteem case: "[17] Clear error has not been defined. ... However in light of the caveat of caution mentioned in the View Esteem case#HL....
(see View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. ... Spring Energy Sdn Bhd, [2020] 7 AMR 147 at p 5, the High Court stated as follows as regards the View Esteem case: "[17] Clear error has not been defined. ... However in light of the caveat of caution mentioned in the View Esteem case, I am also only minded to grant the stay if my conscience is pricked in the special circumstances of the case. Beyond that, it is incapable of definition or illustration....
We are in agreement with the views expressed in Cipaa (supra). 4. For the reasons noted above, we find that the breach and non-compliance of our Orders by Respondent No. This entitles the Court in a given case to take recourse to summary proceedings when a deliberate contempt takes place and the punishment is given forthwith by the Court. 17.14. We also fnd that the Judgments relied upon by the Respondent No. 4 in the case of Ania Sarkar (supra) is of no relevance and renders no assistance to Respondent No.
16.2 JS, DoR, GoI stated that a fresh proposal was received from the State of Uttar Pradesh vide DO. He then asked JS, DoR, GoI to apprise the Council of the latest update. He further stated that in the 39th GST Council meeting the Council approved the proposal for creating State Bench of Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal for the State of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad and 4 Area Benches at Ghaziabad, Lucknow, Varanasi and Agra. No 20/GST dated 29th May, 2020 regarding creation of the State and Area Benches of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) for th....
The latest update on the number of pigs which can be transported through vehicle is given below: S. No. Type of animal Vehicle having size 5.6 m * 2.35 m Vehicle having size 5.15 m * 2.18 m Vehicle having size 3.03 m * 2.18 m Vehicle having size 2.9 m * 2.0 m 1. Weaner 43 37 22 19 2. Young 31 26 15 13 3. Adult 21 18 10 ....
Judges and Lawyers should update themselves with the latest trend of law. Thus, it seems that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, has not been informed of the latest trend of law on this aspect.
Therefore, it seems that the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, has not been informed of the latest trend of law on this aspect. Judges and Lawyers should update themselves with the latest trend of law.
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
