Construction Law
30 cases · October 2023 to May 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 23
1 24
7 25
21 26
2023–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Arbitration — Setting aside of arbitral award — Application under sections 37(1)(b)(ii), 37(2)(b)(i), 37(2)(b)(ii), 37(6) and 50 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Public policy — Breach of natural justice — Whether award reasoning disclosed a defect in the chain of reasoning — Whether arbitrator's multi-limbed finding on invalidity of Certificate of Non-Completion ("CNC") irrational or capricious — CNC issued seven months late and backdated — Non-compliance with PAM Conditions of Contract — Failure to account for partial possession — Outstanding extension of time applications undetermined at date of issuance — Whether factual error by arbitrator amounts to breach of natural justice — Whether failure to exercise power under Clause 34.8(d) to "open up, review and revise" defective certificate constitutes breach of natural justice — Liquidated damages — Penalty clause — Whether departure from binding Federal Court decision in Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 1935 constitutes breach of natural justice contrary to public policy — Distinction between error of law and breach of natural justice –– Pre-award interest — Whether contractual and unliquidated claims comparable for interest crystallisation purposes — Remission under Section 37(6) — Whether remission available where no ground for setting aside established — Enforcement of Final Award under Section 38 — Mandatory nature of enforcement where formal requirements met — Whether supervisory court retains residual discretion to refuse enforcement independent of setting aside — High Court supervisory jurisdiction — Minimal curial intervention 2 Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside, stay and enforcement of adjudication decision — Late payment interest — Second moiety of retention sum — Certificate of Making Good Defects(CMGD) not issued — Indemnity cross-claim versus Liquidated Ascertained Damages claim — Whether the term "invoice" under Section 36(4) of CIPAA is to be construed purposively to include payment certifications issued by a project consultant — Whether a paying party who controls and withholds the certification process may rely on the absence of a formal invoice to defeat a claim for late payment interest — Whether the adjudicator's statutory powers under Sections 25(m) and (n) of CIPAA extend to evaluating an Architect's active and reasoned refusal to issue a CMGD — Whether the adjudicator committed a breach of natural justice under Section 15(b) of CIPAA by applying procedural prerequisites specific to a LAD claim to an indemnity-based cross-claim pleaded under Clause 21(vi) of the Letter of Award — Whether any such breach is rendered immaterial by an independent and unchallenged finding of non-compliance with the set-off notice requirements under Clause 26.13 of the PAM Sub-Contract 2006 — Whether the "special circumstances" test applicable to stay of execution governs a stay application under Section 16(1)(b) of CIPAA or whether the correct test is confined to clear and unequivocal errors or the justice of the individual case 2 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. 2 Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Adjudication — Setting aside — Enforcement 2 Adjudication — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) — ss 15(b) & (d), 28 — Application to set aside adjudication decision and cross-application for enforcement — Scope of court’s supervisory jurisdiction — Whether court may review merits — Temporary finality of adjudication decision. 2 ARBITRATION — Whether the Final Award dated 16.12.2025 constitutes a "final award" within the meaning of the injunction orders — Whether the reservation of arbitration costs to a further award derogates from the finality of the award on substantive issues — Whether the issuance of the Final Award triggered the automatic lapse of the injunctions — Section 2 of the Arbitration Act(“AA”) 2005 — definition of "award" — Section 34(1) of the AA 2005 — doctrine of functus officio — Whether residual tribunal jurisdiction on costs is consistent with substantive finality — Section 36 of the AA 2005 — finality and binding effect of awards — AIAC Arbitration Rules 2021, Rule 2(4) — definition of "final award" — Whether the absence of a stay of the Final Award precluded the plaintiff from restraining the guarantee calls — Whether the conduct of the Defendants in calling upon the Bank Guarantee post-Final Award constitutes a breach of any subsisting court order. CIVIL PROCEDURE — INJUNCTION — Whether the 2023 Injunction Order and the Consent Order were perpetual or conditional — Distinction between perpetual and interlocutory injunctions — Whether an event-bound or conditional injunction lapses automatically upon the occurrence of the stipulated event without a further court order — Whether the injunctions lapsed upon the issuance of the Final Award — Whether the Defendants were in breach of court orders by proceeding with the guarantee calls after the Final Award. 2 Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Adjudication decision — Application to set aside — Application to enforce — Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction — Whether breach of natural justice established — Whether adjudicator failed to consider material evidence — Whether adjudicator entitled to adopt own methodology in valuation of works — Distinction between jurisdictional error and error on merits — Temporary finality of adjudication decision 2 Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside, stay and enforcement of adjudication decision — Whether the Adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under Section 15(d) of CIPAA by awarding the second moiety of the retention sum in the absence of a Certificate of Making Good Defects ("CMGD") — Whether the Adjudicator may exercise statutory powers under Sections 25(m) and (n) of CIPAA to find that a contractual condition precedent had been constructively satisfied notwithstanding the absence of certification — Whether the Adjudicator's failure to accept a party's evidence constitutes a breach of natural justice under Section 15(b) of CIPAA — Whether failure to consider the MHE Report or disagreement with the probative weight accorded to it amounts to a denial of natural justice — Whether challenges to the Adjudicator's treatment of the RM700,000.00 settlement, Payment Certificate No. 39R, and the counterclaim and set-off constitute jurisdictional or procedural defects or impermissible challenges to the merits — Whether the existence of pending arbitration proceedings is sufficient to warrant a stay under Section 16(1)(b) of CIPAA — Whether there exist clear and unequivocal errors of sufficient gravity to prick the conscience of the Court or meet the justice of the case for the purposes of the stay application. 2 Arbitration — Setting aside of arbitral award — Application under s 37 of Arbitration Act 2005– Alleged breach of natural justice — Whether arbitrator failed to consider material submissions –Whether expert witness evidence to be considered when it conflicts with contemporaneous evidence — Whether complaints in truth amounted to challenge on merits and contractual interpretation — Public policy — Minimal curial intervention — Finality of award — Discretion of court whether to set aside. 2 Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and 2 Performance Bond — Arbitration Act 2005, Section 11 Whether an ad interim injunction in aid of arbitration can be granted before arbitration is commenced- Whether plaintiffs’ failure to actively pursue arbitration affects equitable entitlement to relief- Whether the plaintiffs came before the Court with clean hands — material non-disclosures at ex parte stage- Whether the call on the unconditional Performance Bond is unconscionable- Whether mere contractual disputes, including EOT 2 assessment, termination, and simultaneous bond call, meet the threshold of unconscionability- Whether cumulative conduct of the Defendant can establish oppression or unfairness justifying injunction- Whether the balance of convenience favours continuation or discharge of injunction-Whether the on-demand nature of a BG is separate from underlying contract disputes. 1 Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Pre-decision judicial intervention — Whether the High Court should intervene in ongoing adjudication proceedings before a decision is rendered — Whether the threshold of "plainly and obviously clear" absence of core jurisdiction is met —— Whether a time-barred claim under Section 7(3) CIPAA constitutes a threshold condition going to core jurisdiction or a substantive defence for the adjudicator to determine — Distinction between core jurisdiction and substantive defences— Whether a live factual dispute as to acknowledgment of debt under Section 26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 can be resolved on affidavit evidence at the pre-decision stage— Whether the existence of an arbitration clause and concurrent arbitration proceedings constitute an independent ground for declining pre-emptive declaratory relief — Kompetenz-kompetenz under Section 18 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether the limitation question is a matter for the arbitrator to determine finally 1 Whether Clause 30.10 of the PAM Contract 2006 requires compliance for dispute resolution — Whether the Final Certificate issued under Clause 30.10(a) is enforceable despite the Defendant's dispute — Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is conclusively agreed by operation of Clause 30.10 1 Whether the LOAs contained a binding completion date where the construction period was expressed to follow the Plaintiff’s master work programme —Whether the Main Contract terms on payment procedure, Defects Liability Period and retention mechanism are incorporated into the LOAs where the Defendant was not given a copy of the Main Contract and each LOA contains an express precedence clause — Whether the payment mechanism under Clause 4.3 of the LOAs is non-operational where the submission date is dependent on an external event controlled solely by the Plaintiff — Whether Clause 4.4 is the operative withholding provision and whether it was validly invoked — Whether the release of retention is tied to the issuance of the Certificate of Practical Completion where no such express tie exists in the LOAs — Whether the CPC is to be treated as issued where the CCC has been issued and the project handed over. BUILDING CONTRACT — Whether the obligation under Clause 2.8 to provide as-built drawings with professional engineer endorsement constitutes a condition precedent to all payment or merely a contractual duty whose breach gives rise to a right of set-off — Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from relying on Clause 2.8 as a withholding mechanism by its failure to formally reject the drawings submitted— Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from demanding as-built drawings from the Defendant having claimed and received payment from PJH for the same scope under the Main Contract CIPAA 2012 — Whether adjudication decisions not set aside under Section 15 remain validly subsisting and constitute persuasive evidence in a full trial notwithstanding a conditional stay under Section 16(1)(b) — Whether the Plaintiff’s Settlement Agreement with PJH, executed after the adjudication decisions, circumvents the Defendant’s right to direct payment under Section 30 of CIPAA 2012. 1 Whether the independence/autonomy principle applicable to on-demand guarantees and performance bonds precludes the guarantor from invoking Clause 25.4(d) of the PAM Contract 2006 (With Quantities) as a defence to its payment obligations under the Guarantee — Whether a holding company guarantor may rely upon the contractual rights, defences, set-offs and withholding provisions of its subsidiary (as principal debtor) under the underlying construction contract to resist payment under an on-demand guarantee — Whether the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (COVID-19 Act) applies to suspend a guarantor's monetary payment obligations under an on-demand corporate guarantee — Whether the COVID-19 Act defence available (if any) to the principal debtor in the underlying construction contract proceedings may be transmitted to or relied upon by the guarantor under a separate and independent guarantee instrument — Whether late payment interest accruing under Clause 30.17 of the PAM Contract 2006 forms part of the "sum due and owing" recoverable by the beneficiary under an on-demand corporate guarantee 1 Whether Clause 7.6 of the Tripartite Contract makes the formal issuance of a 3 rd Party payment certificate a condition precedent to the Respondent's payment obligation — Whether the "approved amount" in Clause 7.6 was established through the Respondent's own documents — EVIDENCE — Whether the Appellant has discharged its burden of proof on the balance of probabilities--Whether the Respondent’s own contemporaneous documents constitute sufficient evidence to establish the Appellant's entitlement to the Claim Sum — Whether the Appellant's claim is supported by the Sub-Supplier Project Final Account Statement and Subcontractor Progress Payment Application Form — Whether WhatsApp admissions by the Respondent’s representative, can be used as acknowledgment of debt — Whether an adverse inference can be drawn under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 due to the failure to call Respondent’s representative as a witness. CIVIL PROCEDURE — APPELLATE REVIEW — Whether the absence of written grounds of judgment from the Sessions Court affects the standard of review — Whether the appellate court can independently assess the evidence and intervene in the decision of the Sessions Court in the absence of clear reasoning. 1 Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside of adjudication decision-- Whether the Adjudicator's failure to disclose his involvement in an ongoing Civil Suit constitutes a jurisdictional defect under Section 15(d) CIPAA-- Whether the non-disclosure or refusal to recuse himself gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias under Sections 15(b) and 15(c) of CIPAA--Whether the Adjudicator owes a duty to disclose-- Whether there was any denial of natural justice in the Adjudication Proceedings ---Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from challenging the decision due to its election to continue with the Adjudication despite of initial objections to the Adjudicator's alleged impartiality. 1 Arbitration — Setting aside of arbitral award — Application under sections 37(1)(a)(iv), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Breach of natural justice — Whether arbitrator failed to consider Interpretation Argument premised on textual comparison of Bills of Quantities between two contract packages — Whether Award reasoning disclosed a break in the chain of reasoning — Whether arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by making findings on waiver and acquiescence not pleaded by parties — Whether observations on absence of contemporaneous complaints constituted legal findings of waiver or mere factual inferences drawn from the matrix to resolve pleaded contractual interpretation issue — Whether complaints in truth amounted to challenge on merits, weighing of evidence and findings of fact — Whether expert witness evidence on industry meaning of "erection" in construction contracts to be preferred over textual analysis — Minimal curial intervention — Finality of arbitral award. 1 Adjudication — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Application to set aside adjudication decision under s.15(b) and (d) CIPAA — Enforcement of adjudication decision under s.28 CIPAA — Consolidation of proceedings — Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction — Whether breach of natural justice — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Originating Summons — Parallel applications — OS 19 and OS 21 — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside adjudication decision — Natural justice — Excess of jurisdiction — Fraud — Impartiality — Enforcement of adjudication decision — Section 28 CIPAA 2012 — Order 69A Rule 5 Rules of Court 2012 — Requirements for enforcement — Whether applicant must show absence of grounds for setting aside — Limited discretion of High Court — “Pay now, argue later” principle — Temporary finality — Purpose and object of CIPAA — Upholding adjudicator’s decision unless jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice. 1 Construction contracts — Adjudication of payment disputes — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (‘CIPAA’) — Claim for payment of unpaid progress for work done — Whether enforcement of adjudication decision in Section 28 CIPAA as an Order of the Court can be stayed — Section 16 CIPAA 1
Arbitration — Setting aside of arbitral award — Application under sections 37(1)(b)(ii), 37(2)(b)(i), 37(2)(b)(ii), 37(6) and 50 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Public policy — Breach of natural justice — Whether award reasoning disclosed a defect in the chain of reasoning — Whether arbitrator's multi-limbed finding on invalidity of Certificate of Non-Completion ("CNC") irrational or capricious — CNC issued seven months late and backdated — Non-compliance with PAM Conditions of Contract — Failure to account for partial possession — Outstanding extension of time applications undetermined at date of issuance — Whether factual error by arbitrator amounts to breach of natural justice — Whether failure to exercise power under Clause 34.8(d) to "open up, review and revise" defective certificate constitutes breach of natural justice — Liquidated damages — Penalty clause — Whether departure from binding Federal Court decision in Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 1935 constitutes breach of natural justice contrary to public policy — Distinction between error of law and breach of natural justice –– Pre-award interest — Whether contractual and unliquidated claims comparable for interest crystallisation purposes — Remission under Section 37(6) — Whether remission available where no ground for setting aside established — Enforcement of Final Award under Section 38 — Mandatory nature of enforcement where formal requirements met — Whether supervisory court retains residual discretion to refuse enforcement independent of setting aside — High Court supervisory jurisdiction — Minimal curial intervention 2 cases
Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside, stay and enforcement of adjudication decision — Late payment interest — Second moiety of retention sum — Certificate of Making Good Defects(CMGD) not issued — Indemnity cross-claim versus Liquidated Ascertained Damages claim — Whether the term "invoice" under Section 36(4) of CIPAA is to be construed purposively to include payment certifications issued by a project consultant — Whether a paying party who controls and withholds the certification process may rely on the absence of a formal invoice to defeat a claim for late payment interest — Whether the adjudicator's statutory powers under Sections 25(m) and (n) of CIPAA extend to evaluating an Architect's active and reasoned refusal to issue a CMGD — Whether the adjudicator committed a breach of natural justice under Section 15(b) of CIPAA by applying procedural prerequisites specific to a LAD claim to an indemnity-based cross-claim pleaded under Clause 21(vi) of the Letter of Award — Whether any such breach is rendered immaterial by an independent and unchallenged finding of non-compliance with the set-off notice requirements under Clause 26.13 of the PAM Sub-Contract 2006 — Whether the "special circumstances" test applicable to stay of execution governs a stay application under Section 16(1)(b) of CIPAA or whether the correct test is confined to clear and unequivocal errors or the justice of the individual case 2 cases
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. 2 cases
wa-24c-2-01-2026 FELCRA JAYAPUTRA SDN BHD v 1. ) Aw Ching Fu berniaga di bawah perkongsian yang dikenali sebagai Zhe Ming Engineering Works 2. ) Lim Siang Yong berniaga di bawah perkongsian yang dikenali sebagai Zhe Ming Engineering Works
29 March 2026
wa-24c-6-01-2026 ZHE MING ENGINEERING WORKS v FELCRA JAYAPUTRA SDN BHD
29 March 2026
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Adjudication — Setting aside — Enforcement 2 cases
Adjudication — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) — ss 15(b) & (d), 28 — Application to set aside adjudication decision and cross-application for enforcement — Scope of court’s supervisory jurisdiction — Whether court may review merits — Temporary finality of adjudication decision. 2 cases
ARBITRATION — Whether the Final Award dated 16.12.2025 constitutes a "final award" within the meaning of the injunction orders — Whether the reservation of arbitration costs to a further award derogates from the finality of the award on substantive issues — Whether the issuance of the Final Award triggered the automatic lapse of the injunctions — Section 2 of the Arbitration Act(“AA”) 2005 — definition of "award" — Section 34(1) of the AA 2005 — doctrine of functus officio — Whether residual tribunal jurisdiction on costs is consistent with substantive finality — Section 36 of the AA 2005 — finality and binding effect of awards — AIAC Arbitration Rules 2021, Rule 2(4) — definition of "final award" — Whether the absence of a stay of the Final Award precluded the plaintiff from restraining the guarantee calls — Whether the conduct of the Defendants in calling upon the Bank Guarantee post-Final Award constitutes a breach of any subsisting court order. CIVIL PROCEDURE — INJUNCTION — Whether the 2023 Injunction Order and the Consent Order were perpetual or conditional — Distinction between perpetual and interlocutory injunctions — Whether an event-bound or conditional injunction lapses automatically upon the occurrence of the stipulated event without a further court order — Whether the injunctions lapsed upon the issuance of the Final Award — Whether the Defendants were in breach of court orders by proceeding with the guarantee calls after the Final Award. 2 cases
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Adjudication decision — Application to set aside — Application to enforce — Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction — Whether breach of natural justice established — Whether adjudicator failed to consider material evidence — Whether adjudicator entitled to adopt own methodology in valuation of works — Distinction between jurisdictional error and error on merits — Temporary finality of adjudication decision 2 cases
Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside, stay and enforcement of adjudication decision — Whether the Adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under Section 15(d) of CIPAA by awarding the second moiety of the retention sum in the absence of a Certificate of Making Good Defects ("CMGD") — Whether the Adjudicator may exercise statutory powers under Sections 25(m) and (n) of CIPAA to find that a contractual condition precedent had been constructively satisfied notwithstanding the absence of certification — Whether the Adjudicator's failure to accept a party's evidence constitutes a breach of natural justice under Section 15(b) of CIPAA — Whether failure to consider the MHE Report or disagreement with the probative weight accorded to it amounts to a denial of natural justice — Whether challenges to the Adjudicator's treatment of the RM700,000.00 settlement, Payment Certificate No. 39R, and the counterclaim and set-off constitute jurisdictional or procedural defects or impermissible challenges to the merits — Whether the existence of pending arbitration proceedings is sufficient to warrant a stay under Section 16(1)(b) of CIPAA — Whether there exist clear and unequivocal errors of sufficient gravity to prick the conscience of the Court or meet the justice of the case for the purposes of the stay application. 2 cases
Arbitration — Setting aside of arbitral award — Application under s 37 of Arbitration Act 2005– Alleged breach of natural justice — Whether arbitrator failed to consider material submissions –Whether expert witness evidence to be considered when it conflicts with contemporaneous evidence — Whether complaints in truth amounted to challenge on merits and contractual interpretation — Public policy — Minimal curial intervention — Finality of award — Discretion of court whether to set aside. 2 cases
Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and 2 cases
Performance Bond — Arbitration Act 2005, Section 11 Whether an ad interim injunction in aid of arbitration can be granted before arbitration is commenced- Whether plaintiffs’ failure to actively pursue arbitration affects equitable entitlement to relief- Whether the plaintiffs came before the Court with clean hands — material non-disclosures at ex parte stage- Whether the call on the unconditional Performance Bond is unconscionable- Whether mere contractual disputes, including EOT 2 assessment, termination, and simultaneous bond call, meet the threshold of unconscionability- Whether cumulative conduct of the Defendant can establish oppression or unfairness justifying injunction- Whether the balance of convenience favours continuation or discharge of injunction-Whether the on-demand nature of a BG is separate from underlying contract disputes. 1 case
Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Pre-decision judicial intervention — Whether the High Court should intervene in ongoing adjudication proceedings before a decision is rendered — Whether the threshold of "plainly and obviously clear" absence of core jurisdiction is met —— Whether a time-barred claim under Section 7(3) CIPAA constitutes a threshold condition going to core jurisdiction or a substantive defence for the adjudicator to determine — Distinction between core jurisdiction and substantive defences— Whether a live factual dispute as to acknowledgment of debt under Section 26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 can be resolved on affidavit evidence at the pre-decision stage— Whether the existence of an arbitration clause and concurrent arbitration proceedings constitute an independent ground for declining pre-emptive declaratory relief — Kompetenz-kompetenz under Section 18 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether the limitation question is a matter for the arbitrator to determine finally 1 case
Whether Clause 30.10 of the PAM Contract 2006 requires compliance for dispute resolution — Whether the Final Certificate issued under Clause 30.10(a) is enforceable despite the Defendant's dispute — Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is conclusively agreed by operation of Clause 30.10 1 case
Whether the LOAs contained a binding completion date where the construction period was expressed to follow the Plaintiff’s master work programme —Whether the Main Contract terms on payment procedure, Defects Liability Period and retention mechanism are incorporated into the LOAs where the Defendant was not given a copy of the Main Contract and each LOA contains an express precedence clause — Whether the payment mechanism under Clause 4.3 of the LOAs is non-operational where the submission date is dependent on an external event controlled solely by the Plaintiff — Whether Clause 4.4 is the operative withholding provision and whether it was validly invoked — Whether the release of retention is tied to the issuance of the Certificate of Practical Completion where no such express tie exists in the LOAs — Whether the CPC is to be treated as issued where the CCC has been issued and the project handed over. BUILDING CONTRACT — Whether the obligation under Clause 2.8 to provide as-built drawings with professional engineer endorsement constitutes a condition precedent to all payment or merely a contractual duty whose breach gives rise to a right of set-off — Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from relying on Clause 2.8 as a withholding mechanism by its failure to formally reject the drawings submitted— Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from demanding as-built drawings from the Defendant having claimed and received payment from PJH for the same scope under the Main Contract CIPAA 2012 — Whether adjudication decisions not set aside under Section 15 remain validly subsisting and constitute persuasive evidence in a full trial notwithstanding a conditional stay under Section 16(1)(b) — Whether the Plaintiff’s Settlement Agreement with PJH, executed after the adjudication decisions, circumvents the Defendant’s right to direct payment under Section 30 of CIPAA 2012. 1 case
Whether the independence/autonomy principle applicable to on-demand guarantees and performance bonds precludes the guarantor from invoking Clause 25.4(d) of the PAM Contract 2006 (With Quantities) as a defence to its payment obligations under the Guarantee — Whether a holding company guarantor may rely upon the contractual rights, defences, set-offs and withholding provisions of its subsidiary (as principal debtor) under the underlying construction contract to resist payment under an on-demand guarantee — Whether the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (COVID-19 Act) applies to suspend a guarantor's monetary payment obligations under an on-demand corporate guarantee — Whether the COVID-19 Act defence available (if any) to the principal debtor in the underlying construction contract proceedings may be transmitted to or relied upon by the guarantor under a separate and independent guarantee instrument — Whether late payment interest accruing under Clause 30.17 of the PAM Contract 2006 forms part of the "sum due and owing" recoverable by the beneficiary under an on-demand corporate guarantee 1 case
Whether Clause 7.6 of the Tripartite Contract makes the formal issuance of a 3 rd Party payment certificate a condition precedent to the Respondent's payment obligation — Whether the "approved amount" in Clause 7.6 was established through the Respondent's own documents — EVIDENCE — Whether the Appellant has discharged its burden of proof on the balance of probabilities--Whether the Respondent’s own contemporaneous documents constitute sufficient evidence to establish the Appellant's entitlement to the Claim Sum — Whether the Appellant's claim is supported by the Sub-Supplier Project Final Account Statement and Subcontractor Progress Payment Application Form — Whether WhatsApp admissions by the Respondent’s representative, can be used as acknowledgment of debt — Whether an adverse inference can be drawn under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 due to the failure to call Respondent’s representative as a witness. CIVIL PROCEDURE — APPELLATE REVIEW — Whether the absence of written grounds of judgment from the Sessions Court affects the standard of review — Whether the appellate court can independently assess the evidence and intervene in the decision of the Sessions Court in the absence of clear reasoning. 1 case
Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside of adjudication decision-- Whether the Adjudicator's failure to disclose his involvement in an ongoing Civil Suit constitutes a jurisdictional defect under Section 15(d) CIPAA-- Whether the non-disclosure or refusal to recuse himself gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias under Sections 15(b) and 15(c) of CIPAA--Whether the Adjudicator owes a duty to disclose-- Whether there was any denial of natural justice in the Adjudication Proceedings ---Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from challenging the decision due to its election to continue with the Adjudication despite of initial objections to the Adjudicator's alleged impartiality. 1 case
Arbitration — Setting aside of arbitral award — Application under sections 37(1)(a)(iv), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Breach of natural justice — Whether arbitrator failed to consider Interpretation Argument premised on textual comparison of Bills of Quantities between two contract packages — Whether Award reasoning disclosed a break in the chain of reasoning — Whether arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by making findings on waiver and acquiescence not pleaded by parties — Whether observations on absence of contemporaneous complaints constituted legal findings of waiver or mere factual inferences drawn from the matrix to resolve pleaded contractual interpretation issue — Whether complaints in truth amounted to challenge on merits, weighing of evidence and findings of fact — Whether expert witness evidence on industry meaning of "erection" in construction contracts to be preferred over textual analysis — Minimal curial intervention — Finality of arbitral award. 1 case
Adjudication — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Application to set aside adjudication decision under s.15(b) and (d) CIPAA — Enforcement of adjudication decision under s.28 CIPAA — Consolidation of proceedings — Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction — Whether breach of natural justice — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Originating Summons — Parallel applications — OS 19 and OS 21 — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside adjudication decision — Natural justice — Excess of jurisdiction — Fraud — Impartiality — Enforcement of adjudication decision — Section 28 CIPAA 2012 — Order 69A Rule 5 Rules of Court 2012 — Requirements for enforcement — Whether applicant must show absence of grounds for setting aside — Limited discretion of High Court — “Pay now, argue later” principle — Temporary finality — Purpose and object of CIPAA — Upholding adjudicator’s decision unless jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice. 1 case
Construction contracts — Adjudication of payment disputes — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (‘CIPAA’) — Claim for payment of unpaid progress for work done — Whether enforcement of adjudication decision in Section 28 CIPAA as an Order of the Court can be stayed — Section 16 CIPAA 1 case
Key Statutes
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 5 cases Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012
cited in 3 cases GST Act 2014
cited in 2 cases Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 2 cases Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)
cited in 2 cases Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Top Lawyers
Cases
Page 2 of 2wa-24carb-32-08-2025
NORTON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v GLOMAC KRISTAL SDN BHD
23 November 2025
MYHC
wa-24c-62-04-2025
GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN BHD v DAMAI CITY SDN BHD
5 November 2025
MYHC
wa-24c-80-04-2025
DAMAI CITY SDN BHD v GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN. BHD.
5 November 2025
MYHC
ja-24c-19-08-2023
Era Universe Development Sdn Bhd v KEN LIP CONSTRUCTIONS & TRADING SDN. BHD.
27 August 2024
MYHC
02f-2-01-2023w
Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd v ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd
2 October 2023
MYFC