KERJAYA PROSPEK Sdn Bhd

On the court record

Illustrates how the courts operate the CIPAA adjudication regime, determine the setting aside and enforcement of adjudication decisions under sections 15 and 28, and give effect to the Act's purpose of maintaining cash flow in construction.

Kerjaya Prospek (M) Sdn Bhd appears in this corpus as a construction contractor, and its reported matters, decided in the High Court, cluster around adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA). A recurring pattern consists of connected applications arising from an adjudication decision between the company and a counterparty subcontractor or employer: applications under section 15 to set aside a decision on grounds such as a denial of natural justice or an excess of jurisdiction, applications under section 28 to enforce an adjudicated sum as if it were a judgment, and the interaction between the two where enforcement and setting aside are pursued in parallel. The court's task in these matters is to apply the Act's scheme for the swift interim resolution of construction payment disputes, enforcing an adjudication decision unless one of the limited statutory grounds for setting it aside or staying it is made out. The corpus also includes ordinary civil-procedure applications incidental to a construction dispute, such as an application to set aside third-party proceedings. Because Kerjaya Prospek appears as both applicant and respondent across these connected proceedings, the decisions reflect its position on both sides of a construction payment dispute — enforcing a favourable adjudication decision while resisting an unfavourable one. The matters are decided in the High Court exercising its construction jurisdiction. Collectively the decisions in which Kerjaya Prospek is a party illustrate how the courts operate the CIPAA adjudication regime, determine the setting aside and enforcement of adjudication decisions under sections 15 and 28, and give effect to the Act's purpose of maintaining cash flow through the swift interim resolution of construction payment disputes. Several of the reported matters also concern the limited grounds on which an adjudication decision may be set aside — a denial of natural justice or an excess of jurisdiction — and the deference the court owes to the adjudicator's findings within the reference. Across these decisions the contractor appears on both sides of a construction payment dispute, enforcing a favourable adjudication while resisting an unfavourable one under the same statutory scheme.