Introduction The Construction Industry Payment Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) was enacted to alleviate payment problems in the construction industry by allowing any payment dispute to be resolved speedily through adjudication. However, the losing party may opt to set aside or stay an adjudication decision pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of the CIPAA. On the…
Search Results for: court's discretion
Facts In SS Precast Sdn Bhd v Serba Dinamik Group Bhd,(1) the plaintiff obtained a judgment in default of defence against the first to sixth defendants on 28 March 2020, which was during the enforcement of the Movement Control Order (MCO) in Malaysia. The defendants then filed applications to set aside the judgment in default,…
Are the Malaysian courts adopting a minimalist judicial intervention approach in considering anti-arbitration injunctions? This article discusses the recent Federal Court decision of Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd and two recent high court decisions that made reference thereto.
12
May
May
Our Tasha Lim discusses the High Court’s decision in Cescon Engineers Sdn Bhd v Pesat Bumi Sdn Bhd and another case [2022] 9 MLJ 79 with respect to adjudicators’ powers. Introduction Adjudicators are granted wide discretionary powers under section 25 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA). The High Court recently discussed…
In Sunrise Megaway Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v Kathryn Ma Wai Fong, the Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether a liquidator’s decision to admit a proof of debt (POD) could be challenged.
Introduction The direct payment made by an employer of a construction project to a subcontractor is a key feature of statutory adjudication in Malaysia. In BHL Gemilang Sdn Bhd v CT Indah Construction Sdn Bhd,(1) the apex court refused to disturb the Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling which tests the efficacy of the direct payment…
In The United States of America v Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia,(1) the high court faced a judicial review application filed by the United States in Malaysia. The facts leading to the application were uncommon and the court considered a novel aspect of industrial law jurisprudence in Malaysia. Facts The applicant (the United States) filed the…
Endnotes (1) [2018] MLJU 778.(2) [2003] 4 CLJ 1.(3) [1997] 2 CLJ 2990n.
- 1
- 2