NAZRIN SHAHNAZ BINTI PEER MOHAMED v SLOB SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the direct-payment mechanism against a principal under section 30 of CIPAA 2012, and the principle that service at a company's registered address is good service, defeating a company's attempt to resist a default judgment by asserting ignorance.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Sumathi a/p Murugiah J, arises from proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA 2012). The plaintiff, a sole proprietor subcontractor, had obtained an Adjudication Decision dated 19 July 2024 from the appointed adjudicator in its favour against the main contractor, Orangebeam Construction Sdn Bhd. When the main contractor failed to pay the adjudicated amount, the plaintiff made a written request to the defendant, SLOB Sdn Bhd (formerly Seri Libana OB JV Sdn Bhd), as the principal to the main contractor, for direct payment under section 30 of CIPAA 2012. The underlying works were built-in furniture and interior design works under a letter of award and subcontract, with substantial sums certified but unpaid, including a balance owing under a certificate of payment that had driven the plaintiff to adjudication in the first place.

The plaintiff proceeded against the defendant and obtained a judgment in default, and the application the Court determined was the defendant's attempt to set that judgment aside. The defendant's position turned on service — in substance, that it had not known about the suit. The Court rejected that contention. Relying on authority including Mayland Avenue Sdn Bhd v Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd, the Court held that service at the registered address of a company is good service in law, that the registered company secretary would by law have informed the company of the service of the cause papers and the judgment in default, and that in the circumstances the defendant could not feign ignorance. There was no compelling evidence to support the defendant's position and no cogent reason to enlarge time.

The Court held that the cause papers and the judgment in default had been served regularly, and accordingly dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the judgment, with costs of RM5,000 to the plaintiff subject to allocatur. The judgment is a useful illustration of the direct-payment mechanism against a principal under section 30 of CIPAA 2012, and of the principle that service at a company's registered address is good service, so that a company cannot resist a default judgment merely by asserting ignorance of the proceedings.