SETIA UTAMA LRT 3 SDN BHD (Sebelum ini dikenali sebagai MRCB George Kent Sdn Bhd) v 1. ) SIEMENS MOBILITY SDN BHD 2. ) SIEMENS MOBILITY GMBH 3. ) RASMA CORPORATION SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates that although statutory adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 delivers rapid interim relief on a 'pay now, argue later' basis, an adjudication decision remains liable to be set aside under section 15 where the adjudicator has acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by the reference.

This decision of the Construction Court within the High Court in Kuala Lumpur concerns an application to set aside an adjudication decision made under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012. A dispute under a construction contract had been referred to statutory adjudication, and the adjudicator's decision was given in favour of a consortium of contractors, sued as an unincorporated association, and against the paying party. The paying party applied by originating summons to set that adjudication decision aside under section 15 of the Act, which allows an aggrieved party to apply to set aside a decision on limited grounds, including where the adjudicator has acted in excess of jurisdiction, and it also sought a stay pending the outcome of that application. The consortium, for its part, applied by a separate summons, heard together, to enforce the adjudication decision as a judgment of the court under section 28 of the Act. The court examined whether the adjudicator had stayed within the bounds of the dispute referred to her. It concluded that she had not, holding that she had acted in excess of jurisdiction in the respects identified, with the consequence that the adjudication decision as it stood was prejudicial to the paying party. On that basis the court allowed the application to set aside the adjudication decision, with costs, and treated the accompanying application for a stay as academic. In doing so the court was careful to distinguish a genuine excess of jurisdiction, which goes to the validity of the decision, from mere disagreement with the adjudicator's conclusions on the merits, which would not have been a ground for setting the decision aside. The judgment illustrates that although adjudication under the Act is designed to deliver rapid, interim relief on the 'pay now, argue later' principle, an adjudication decision remains liable to be set aside under section 15 where the adjudicator has strayed beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the reference.