CTL BORED PILE & MACHINERY SDN. BHD. v S.P. MULIA SDN. BHD.

ja-24c-6-11-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 1 March 2026 • JA-24C-6-11/2025 • 22 min read
11 cases cited (1 SG, 10 foreign)

Outcome

Accordingly, the Plaintiff fails in its objections and the Defendant's Enforcement Application is allowed.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ja-24c-6-11-2025). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Building And Construction Law — Adjudication — Enforcement — Section 28 CIPAA — Three Statutory Bars To Enforcement Under Section 13 — None Engaged Where Setting Aside Dismissed And Arbitration Proceedings In Their Infancy — Objection That Arbitration Commenced Over Same Adjudicated Sum — Whether Risk Of Double Recovery A Bar To Enforcement — Objection That Disputed Invoice Not Properly Served — Whether Notice Of Demand A Precondition To Enforcement Under Section 28 — Objection That Adjudication Costs Already Paid In Part — Whether Matter For Parties To Reconcile At Execution Stage — Geoforce East Sdn Bhd V Melati Evergreen Sdn Bhd — Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd V Puteri Nusantara Sdn Bhd — Enforcement Allowed

Practice Areas

Construction Law

Judges (1)

Noradura binti Hamzah Delivered

Counsel (5)

Lee & Poh Partnership Firm Tan Vincent & Co Firm Leong Chee Weng Counsel Defendant Naveen a/l Sri Kantha Counsel Defendant Tan Vincent Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

CTL BORED PILE & MACHINERY Sdn Bhd Applicant S.P. MULIA Sdn Bhd Respondent

Statutes Cited

Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012
s 15
Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
s 6
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (11)

SLR (1)
[2007] 3 SLR 86
UK (1)
[2008] EWHC 282
MY (9)
[1995] 1 CLJ 609 [2018] 2 MLJ 22 [2019] 2 MLJ 362 [2020] MLJU 1063 [2021] MLJU 2416 [2021] MLJU 767 [2024] 2 CLJ 665 [2024] 5 CLJ 402 [2025] MLJU 3002

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ja-24c-6-11-2025)