BUMIMETRO CONSTRUCTION Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A construction party whose matters place arbitration and CIPAA side by side, each producing the characteristic set-aside-versus-enforcement contest over a binding award or adjudication decision.

BUMIMETRO CONSTRUCTION Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus in paired arbitration and adjudication enforcement matters, and its appearances show how a construction party litigates the two statutory routes to a binding payment outcome. In connected originating summonses with Must Ehsan Development Sdn Bhd, both arising from a single Final Award delivered on 27 November 2024 in Must Ehsan's favour, the company applied to set the Final Award aside while Must Ehsan applied under section 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005 for the award to be recognised as binding and enforced by entry as a judgment in terms of the award. That pairing — a losing party's set-aside application heard against the successful party's enforcement application — is the characteristic shape of post-award litigation.

In a separate matter the company sought relief under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) against Glomac Al Batha Mutiara Sdn Bhd and another, the court recording the twin applications to stay an adjudication decision and to enforce an adjudication decision, the enforcement application being dismissed with costs. The juxtaposition of the two matters is instructive because it places the arbitration regime and the CIPAA regime side by side: both produce a decision or award that the winner seeks to convert into an enforceable judgment and the loser seeks to resist, but on different statutory grounds and with different thresholds.

For a reader, the company's matters are a compact comparison of Malaysia's two principal construction-dispute mechanisms — arbitration under the Arbitration Act 2005 and statutory adjudication under CIPAA — and of the enforcement-versus-resistance dynamic common to both. The corporate parties are named as they appear on the record; any individuals are referred to by their procedural role only. Placing the arbitration and CIPAA matters side by side highlights that Malaysia offers a contractor two routes to a binding payment outcome, each with its own enforcement mechanism and its own limited grounds of resistance. The recurring dynamic — the winner seeking to convert a decision or award into a judgment, the loser seeking to set it aside or stay it — is common to both regimes.