CIP GROUP SDN BHD v PERANDIK SDN BHD
Catchwords
Enclosure 1. CONSTRUCTION LAW – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – Adjudication decision – Application to set aside – Section 15(b) & (d) CIPAA –Excess of jurisdiction – Alleged non-compliance with s.5(2)(a) (due date for payment) –Whether incorrect or miscalculated due date renders payment claim invalid – Whether failure to raise jurisdictional objection during adjudication precludes reliance at setting-aside stage –Distinction between absence of due date and minor miscalculation – “Pay now, argue later” principle – Technical objections – Whether adjudication decision a nullity – Section 5(2)(b) CIPAA – Requirement to identify cause of action – Whether express pleading of “breach of contract” required –Substance over form – Holistic reading of payment claim –Jurisdiction vs merits – Federal Court guidance in Anas Construction – Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction – Section 28 CIPAA – Enforcement of adjudication decision as judgment of court –Conditions for enforcement – Discretion of court – Enforcement allowed with costs
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-24c-102-05-2025)