TANJUNG RATNA Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A corporate party whose matters state two disciplines: the confined natural-justice and jurisdiction grounds for setting aside a CIPAA adjudication decision, and the plain-and-obvious threshold for striking out.

TANJUNG RATNA Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus in construction-adjudication and striking-out matters, and its appearances turn on the narrow supervisory jurisdiction over adjudication decisions and the pleadings-management jurisdiction. In connected matters with SLG Construction Sdn Bhd, the company appears as applicant to set aside an adjudication decision under section 15(b) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), on the ground of an alleged denial of natural justice, and as a party to the enforcement proceedings. The court's analysis engaged the scope of its supervisory jurisdiction, the distinction between procedural fairness and merits review, the presumption that an adjudicator considered all the materials before him, and the materiality of any alleged breach — reiterating that an adjudicator is not required to address every argument or piece of evidence.

In a striking-out matter the court considered an application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012, applying the plain-and-obvious test and distinguishing between a legally unsustainable claim and a triable issue, including whether the court may strike out one cause of action only. The court also addressed the rule that parties are bound by their pleadings and the impermissibility of introducing an unpleaded case, applying established authority on the failure to plead material facts.

For a reader, the cluster is a compact statement of two disciplines: the confined grounds — chiefly jurisdiction and natural justice — on which a CIPAA adjudication decision may be set aside, and the plain-and-obvious threshold for striking out, together with the principle that a party is bound by its pleadings. The corporate parties are named as they appear on the record; any individuals are referred to by their procedural role only. The company's matters state two disciplines the courts apply strictly: the confined grounds — chiefly jurisdiction and natural justice — on which a CIPAA adjudication decision may be disturbed, coupled with the presumption that the adjudicator considered all the materials, and the plain-and-obvious threshold for striking out, reinforced by the rule that a party is bound by its pleadings and may not advance an unpleaded case.