MAYFAIR VENTURES Sdn Bhd

On the court record

Illustrates how the courts operate the CIPAA adjudication regime alongside the Arbitration Act 2005, resolve the jurisdiction of adjudicators, and manage the procedural incidents of a construction dispute pursued through several forums at once.

Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd appears in this corpus as a developer or employer in a construction dispute, litigating in roles including appellant, respondent, applicant and defendant, with matters decided in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The decisions mirror the layered dispute-resolution architecture of a construction project, running in parallel through adjudication and arbitration against a contractor counterparty. Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) recurs, including the jurisdiction of the adjudicator under section 27 and the scope of the reference under section 5, and the enforcement or setting aside of the resulting decision. Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 2005 features through applications to stay court proceedings under section 10 in favour of the agreed arbitral forum, and the corpus engages an arbitral interim order directing the deposit of a retention sum and its effect on the parties. The corpus also includes ordinary civil-procedure applications, such as the amendment of an originating summons to correct a defect and the striking out or stay of proceedings pending the disposal of a related judicial review, raised on the footing that continuing the action would be an abuse of process. Because Mayfair Ventures appears on both sides of these connected proceedings, the decisions reflect its position both in resisting a contractor's adjudicated claim and in invoking arbitration or procedural relief. The matters are decided in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Collectively the decisions in which Mayfair Ventures is a party illustrate how the courts operate the CIPAA adjudication regime alongside the Arbitration Act 2005, resolve the jurisdiction of adjudicators and the enforcement of their decisions, and manage the procedural incidents of a construction dispute pursued through several forums at once. Several of the reported matters also concern the limited grounds on which an adjudication decision may be set aside for want of jurisdiction and the deference a court owes to the arbitral process once it is properly seised. Across these decisions the party appears on both sides of a construction dispute resolved through adjudication, arbitration and the ordinary procedure of the court in turn.