PESAT BUMI Sdn Bhd

On the court record

Illustrates how the courts operate the CIPAA adjudication regime, apply the winding-up grounds in the Companies Act 2016, and resolve disputes over consultancy fees and contractual debt in the construction context.

Pesat Bumi Sdn Bhd appears in this corpus in construction and commercial litigation, in roles including applicant, respondent, defendant and appellant, with matters decided in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Two themes predominate. The first is adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012: the corpus includes several connected originating summonses heard together, one of which seeks to set aside an adjudication decision, engaging the grounds on which such a decision may be challenged and the interaction between enforcement and setting aside. The second is company winding up: proceedings founded on a company's inability to pay its debts under sections 465(1)(e) and 466 of the Companies Act 2016, where the court considers whether the statutory grounds for a winding-up order are made out. The corpus also engages the substance of the parties' commercial dealings, including engineering-consultancy fees payable under a consultancy contract and expressed as a percentage, and a claim for sums owing under a contract of employment where part payments had been made. Because Pesat Bumi appears on both sides of these disputes — as an applicant in adjudication-related proceedings and as a respondent to a winding-up petition — the decisions reflect the several capacities in which a construction company participates in payment and insolvency litigation. The matters are decided in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Collectively the decisions in which Pesat Bumi is a party illustrate how the courts operate the CIPAA adjudication regime, apply the winding-up grounds in sections 465(1)(e) and 466 of the Companies Act 2016, and resolve disputes over consultancy fees and contractual debt in the construction and engineering context. Several of the reported matters also concern the limited grounds on which an adjudication decision may be set aside and the interaction between an adjudication in the company's favour and a winding-up petition founded on a debt it is said to owe, so that the decisions address the interplay of construction adjudication and company insolvency. Across these matters the company appears on both sides of connected payment and insolvency proceedings.