PERUSAHAAN RADZMIN Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A construction claimant's linked CIPAA 2012 proceedings, where set-aside, stay and section 28 enforcement applications over one adjudication decision were heard together.

Perusahaan Radzmin Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus in a set of connected construction-payment proceedings arising from a single adjudication decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA).

Three originating summonses are linked by one adjudication decision that the company obtained against a counterparty. The counterparty applied to set aside that adjudication decision and, separately, to stay it, while the company applied under section 28 of CIPAA to enforce the decision. Hearing these applications in relation to the same decision brings together the full range of statutory responses available once an adjudicator has resolved a payment dispute: the paying party's attempt to set aside or stay, and the successful claimant's attempt to enforce.

The recurring statutory feature is the temporary finality of a CIPAA adjudication decision. Such a decision binds the parties and may be enforced as if it were a court order unless and until it is set aside, stayed, or superseded by a final determination in arbitration or litigation. The company, as the party that obtained the adjudication decision, stood as the enforcing claimant seeking to give the decision practical effect, while resisting the counterparty's applications to set aside and stay.

This grouping is a clear illustration of the interlocking nature of CIPAA remedies, where the enforcement application under section 28 is heard alongside the challenge applications so that the court can determine, in one exercise, whether the adjudicated sum should be paid pending any further proceedings on the merits. The narrative confines itself to the provisions and procedural posture the court identified, and records the court's operative orders only as expressed, without offering any assessment of the underlying construction dispute. The company's dual posture, resisting the set-aside and stay while pressing enforcement under section 28, mirrors the position of any successful adjudication claimant seeking to realise a decision of temporary finality before the merits are finally resolved elsewhere.