DAMANSARA REALTY Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A developer group whose matters centre on defending a CIPAA adjudication decision against paired set-aside and stay applications while pressing enforcement, alongside a partial striking-out contest.

DAMANSARA REALTY (and its project companies, including the Johor and Pahang entities) appears in the corpus across construction-adjudication and pleadings matters, and its appearances centre on the enforcement of an adjudication decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA). In a group of connected originating summonses, Perbadanan Putrajaya applied under section 15(b) and (d) of CIPAA to set aside an adjudication decision dated 10 January 2025 given in favour of the company's Johor entity, and separately applied to stay that decision under section 16, while the company's own summons sought to enforce it. That constellation — set-aside, stay and enforcement over one decision — is the standard CIPAA contest, with the paying party attacking the decision on natural-justice and jurisdictional grounds and the successful claimant moving to convert it into a judgment.

In a separate High Court matter concerning the company's Pahang entity, a claimant's notice of application sought to strike out part of a claim under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012, on the grounds that the impugned claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, were obviously unsustainable, or otherwise amounted to an abuse of process. That matter shows the company on the receiving end of the pleadings-management jurisdiction.

For a reader, the cluster is a practical illustration of two things: how a successful adjudication claimant defends its decision against paired set-aside and stay applications while pressing enforcement, and how partial striking out is used to prune unsustainable heads of claim. The corporate and statutory parties are named as they appear on the record; individuals are referred to by their procedural role only. The developer group's appearances, spread across a project company in Johor and another in Pahang, also illustrate how a corporate group's litigation is distributed among its subsidiaries, each pursuing or defending the matter that concerns its own project, while the governing law — CIPAA for the adjudicated payment, Order 18 for the pleadings — remains the same across the group.