ZHE MING ENGINEERING WORKS v FELCRA JAYAPUTRA SDN BHD

wa-24c-6-01-2026 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 29 March 2026 • WA-24C-6-01/2026

Catchwords

CONSTRUCTION LAW — Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside, stay and enforcement of adjudication decision — Retention sum — Second moiety — Defects Liability Period expired without formal defect notification — Whether Adjudicator committed a breach of natural justice under Section 15(b) of CIPAA by deciding the Liquidated Ascertained Damages ("LAD") issue on an unstated premise regarding extensions of time without affording the Plaintiff an opportunity to address it — Whether the "going off on a frolic" principle in Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC) is engaged where the Adjudicator's conclusion is drawn from materials tendered by the parties themselves — Whether the Adjudicator's treatment of the timing of the LAD notice as evidentially probative constitutes the impermissible imposition of a contractual time-bar or a legitimate exercise of evaluative judgment — Whether the Adjudicator's failure to accept a party's evidence in respect of the water storage tanks, the joint site inspection, or the defective works set-off constitutes a breach of natural justice or an impermissible challenge to the merits — Whether an adverse finding on the sufficiency of evidence in respect of the overclaim set-off of RM583,166.00 differs in principle from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction — Whether the omission to appoint independent experts, convene an oral hearing, or conduct a site visit constitutes a breach of independence or impartiality under Section 15(c) where no such steps were requested during the adjudication — Whether the mere pendency of civil proceedings satisfies the discretionary threshold for a stay under Section 16(1)(b) of CIPAA — Whether the partnership status of the successful claimant and the speculative risk of non-recovery constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a stay — Whether a direction to deposit the adjudicated sum in the unsuccessful party's solicitors' client account amounts to a stay by another name — Whether leave to enforce the Adjudication Decision under Section 28 of CIPAA ought to follow as a matter of course upon dismissal of both the setting aside and stay applications.

Practice Areas

CONSTRUCTION LAW

Judges (1)

Rajes Raghavji Delivered

Parties (2)

FELCRA JAYAPUTRA Sdn Bhd Respondent Zhe Ming Engineering Works Applicant

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24c-6-01-2026)