GLOBAL BUILT Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A construction company litigating the set-aside-versus-enforce pairing of a CIPAA adjudication decision alongside Order 18 rule 19 striking-out of the underlying pleadings.

Global Built Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus in construction-payment litigation under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, in the recurring posture of a party resisting an adjudication decision while the counterparty enforces it. It appears as applicant, respondent and defendant in the High Court.

The core pattern is a paired set of originating summonses arising from a single adjudication decision. In one matter the company applied to set aside the adjudication decision under section 15(b) of CIPAA, while the counterparty applied under section 28 of the Act to enforce the same adjudication decision. In a further connected matter, two originating summonses were again heard together — one to set aside an adjudication decision and one to invoke section 28 to enforce it. This set-aside-versus-enforce pairing is the defining shape of contested adjudication under CIPAA: the unpaid party moves swiftly to convert the adjudicator's decision into an enforceable order, while the paying party seeks to have the decision struck down, typically on jurisdictional or natural-justice grounds.

The company was also involved in ordinary civil-procedure skirmishing around the underlying dispute. In one matter the defendants sought to strike out the plaintiffs' writ of summons and amended statement of claim under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012, contending that the amended pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was otherwise an abuse of process. Taken together, the company's appearances place it squarely within the machinery of construction-payment dispute resolution, where the statutory adjudication regime delivers a rapid provisional outcome and the parties then contest, in parallel, both the validity of that outcome and the viability of the pleaded claims in the ordinary courts. Its footprint is a clear example of how a single construction payment dispute is fought simultaneously on the adjudication and the pleadings fronts.