SETIAKON BUILDERS Sdn Bhd

On the court record

Illustrates how the courts operate the CIPAA adjudication regime alongside the Arbitration Act 2005, honour minimal curial intervention in arbitration, and manage the incidents of a construction dispute pursued through both.

Setiakon Builders Sdn Bhd appears in this corpus as a construction contractor, and its reported matters, decided in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, cluster around adjudication and arbitration in a construction dispute with a counterparty developer. A recurring subject is adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), including the jurisdiction of an adjudicator under section 27 and the scope of the dispute referred under section 5, and the enforcement or setting aside of the resulting adjudication decision. A parallel strand concerns arbitration under the Arbitration Act 2005: applications to stay court proceedings under section 10 in favour of arbitration, and the principle — reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in the corpus — of minimal judicial intervention in the arbitral process. The corpus also engages the interaction between an arbitral interim order and the underlying dispute, such as an interim order directing the deposit of a retention sum and its effect, and ordinary civil-procedure applications, including an application to amend an originating summons to correct a defect. Because Setiakon appears as both respondent and applicant across these connected proceedings, the decisions reflect its position on both sides of a layered construction dispute — enforcing a favourable adjudication while resisting or invoking arbitration as the forum for final resolution. The matters are decided in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Collectively the decisions in which Setiakon Builders is a party illustrate how the courts operate the CIPAA adjudication regime alongside the Arbitration Act 2005, honour the principle of minimal curial intervention in arbitration, and manage the interim and procedural incidents of a construction dispute pursued simultaneously through adjudication and arbitration. Several of the reported matters also concern the limited grounds on which a court will set aside or refuse to enforce an adjudication decision or an arbitral award, and the deference owed to the tribunal's findings within its jurisdiction. Across these decisions the contractor's litigation illustrates the layered, forum-sensitive way in which construction payment disputes are resolved in Malaysia.