BOND M&E SDN. BHD. v GAME ON FUN PARK (SOUTHERN) SDN. BHD.

Case Significance

Illustrates the enforcement of an adjudication decision under section 28 of CIPAA as a judgment of the High Court where the paying party's challenge to the decision failed and no impediment to enforcement remained.

This High Court decision in the Construction Court at Kuala Lumpur concerns the enforcement of an adjudication decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), heard together with a connected application challenging the same decision. Following an adjudication decision dated 21 November 2024 in a payment dispute arising from a construction contract, the successful party, Bond M&E Sdn Bhd, applied by originating summons under section 28 of CIPAA to enforce the decision against Game On Fun Park (Southern) Sdn Bhd, section 28 allowing an adjudicated sum that remains unpaid to be enforced as if it were a judgment or order of the High Court. That enforcement application was heard alongside a connected originating summons by which the paying party sought to resist the decision, invoking provisions of CIPAA including those on setting aside and staying an adjudication decision. Consistently with the scheme of CIPAA, an adjudication decision is binding and is to be complied with unless and until it is set aside, stayed, or the dispute is finally resolved by arbitration or the court, so that a party who has obtained a decision in its favour is ordinarily entitled to enforce it where no ground to set aside or stay is made out. The court found that there were no further impediments to the adjudication decision, dismissed the paying party's connected originating summons with costs of RM10,000, and held that, under section 28(1) and (2) of CIPAA, the adjudication decision was to be enforced, granting the orders sought in the enforcement application with costs of RM5,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of the enforcement of an adjudication decision under section 28 of CIPAA where a challenge to the decision has failed. The judgment also illustrates how the enforcement and challenge mechanisms of CIPAA are typically heard together, so that the court can determine in a single exercise whether any ground to resist the decision exists and, finding none, give immediate effect to the adjudicated sum, thereby preserving the cash-flow objective at the heart of the statutory scheme.