CIPAA: Injunction to Restrain the Presentation of Winding Up Petition based on CIPAA Adjudication Decision
ASM Development (Kl) Sdn. Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd
[Case No. WA-24NCC-363-07/2019]

View PDF 23th March 2020 INTRODUCTION Following the decision in the case of Likas Bay Precinct Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Sdn Bhd [2019] 3 MLJ 244 [read our article…

Continue ReadingCIPAA: Injunction to Restrain the Presentation of Winding Up Petition based on CIPAA Adjudication Decision
ASM Development (Kl) Sdn. Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd
[Case No. WA-24NCC-363-07/2019]

CIPAA Applies Prospectively, Not Retrospectively | (1) Jack-in-Pile (M) Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [02(f)-58-07/2018(B) & 02(f)-59-07/2018(B)] | (2) Ireka Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v PWC Corporation Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [02(f)-124-12/2018(W), 02(f)-125-12/2018(W) & 02(f)-126-12/2018(W)]

Introduction The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) came into force on 15.04.2014. CIPAA’s objective can be gleaned from its preamble:- “An Act to facilitate regular and timely…

Continue ReadingCIPAA Applies Prospectively, Not Retrospectively | (1) Jack-in-Pile (M) Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [02(f)-58-07/2018(B) & 02(f)-59-07/2018(B)] | (2) Ireka Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v PWC Corporation Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [02(f)-124-12/2018(W), 02(f)-125-12/2018(W) & 02(f)-126-12/2018(W)]

CIPAA: Direct Payment from Principal when the Losing Party was wound up? – CT Indah Construction Sdn Bhd v BHL Gemilang Sdn Bhd (Civil Appeal No: W-02(C)(A)-2056-10/2017)

03 December 2019 Introduction When a Claimant successfully obtained an Adjudication Decision in its favour, CIPAA offers 3 methods to enforce of the Adjudication Decision, where the successful Claimant may:-…

Continue ReadingCIPAA: Direct Payment from Principal when the Losing Party was wound up? – CT Indah Construction Sdn Bhd v BHL Gemilang Sdn Bhd (Civil Appeal No: W-02(C)(A)-2056-10/2017)

CIPAA : Terminated Contract and Final Payment – Martego Sdn Bhd v Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal [2019] 1 LNS 1067

20th August 2019 Issues Since leave was given to Martego Sdn Bhd on 02.01.2018 to appeal against the majority decision in the Court of Appeal case of Martego Sdn Bhd v…

Continue ReadingCIPAA : Terminated Contract and Final Payment – Martego Sdn Bhd v Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal [2019] 1 LNS 1067

LAD: Common Sense Approach and Proportionality – MS Elevators Engineering Sdn Bhd v Jasmurni Construction Sdn Bhd W-02(C)(W)-627-03/2018

28th July 2019IssuesConstruction contracts usually contain a clause imposing liquidated ascertained damages (“LAD”) if the contractor fails to complete its works within the agreed contract period. In other words, LAD…

Continue ReadingLAD: Common Sense Approach and Proportionality – MS Elevators Engineering Sdn Bhd v Jasmurni Construction Sdn Bhd W-02(C)(W)-627-03/2018

Resisting Enforcement of CIPAA Decision without filing a Setting Aside Application? Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd v Puteri Nusantara Sdn Bhd [2019] 2 CLJ 229

12th April 2019 Issues Once a decision is rendered in favour of the claimant following adjudication pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA 2012”), the successful…

Continue ReadingResisting Enforcement of CIPAA Decision without filing a Setting Aside Application? Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd v Puteri Nusantara Sdn Bhd [2019] 2 CLJ 229

Navigating Through the Maze of Liquidated Ascertained Damages Clause and Forfeiture of Deposit:
Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) V Mars Telecommunication Sdn Bhd Appeal
No. 02(F) – 64 – 09/2016 (W)

08th March 2019 INTRODUCTION For the longest of time, when there is a breach of contract, the innocent party cannot per se recover the Liquidated Ascertain Damages (“LAD”, also commonly…

Continue ReadingNavigating Through the Maze of Liquidated Ascertained Damages Clause and Forfeiture of Deposit:
Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) V Mars Telecommunication Sdn Bhd Appeal
No. 02(F) – 64 – 09/2016 (W)

CIPAA : Winding Up without first registering Adjudication Decision? Likas Bay Precinct Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 49

21st February 2019 Issues The Malaysian Courts had in the past allowed Fortuna Injunctions to restrain prosecution of winding up petition where the alleged debt is premised upon an unregistered…

Continue ReadingCIPAA : Winding Up without first registering Adjudication Decision? Likas Bay Precinct Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 49

CIPAA : Oral Evidence and Breach of Natural Justice? Guangxi Dev & Cap Sdn Bhd v Sycal Bhd & Anor Appeal [2019] 1 CLJ 592

31st January 2019IssuesAn Adjudicator has the powers to conduct any hearing and limiting the hearing time, if the Adjudicator so wishes. This power is encapsulated in Section 25 (g) of…

Continue ReadingCIPAA : Oral Evidence and Breach of Natural Justice? Guangxi Dev & Cap Sdn Bhd v Sycal Bhd & Anor Appeal [2019] 1 CLJ 592

Quantum Meruit: Subcontractor claiming directly against Employer for work done? Mega Mayang M&E Sdn Bhd v Utama Lodge Sdn Bhd and Anor Appeal [2018] MYCA 329

28th November 2018 Issues Often times it is said that a subcontractor cannot make a direct claim against the employer of the project for payment / work done as there…

Continue ReadingQuantum Meruit: Subcontractor claiming directly against Employer for work done? Mega Mayang M&E Sdn Bhd v Utama Lodge Sdn Bhd and Anor Appeal [2018] MYCA 329

Can Parties Contract Out of the Prevention Principle? North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1744

31st October 2018IssuesThe law does not allow an employer to recover liquidated damages where the delay is caused by the employer. This is the basic tenet of the Prevention Principle.But…

Continue ReadingCan Parties Contract Out of the Prevention Principle? North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1744

No Oral Modification [“NOM”] Clause : Parties Autonomy vs. Commercial Certainty – Rock Advertising Limited (Respondent) v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited (Appellant) [2018] UKSC 24

11th June 2018"No Oral Modification" ClauseThe “prohibition” against oral variation of contract via a No Oral Modification [“NOM”] clause raises several interesting questions:-(a) If parties have the autonomy to mutually…

Continue ReadingNo Oral Modification [“NOM”] Clause : Parties Autonomy vs. Commercial Certainty – Rock Advertising Limited (Respondent) v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited (Appellant) [2018] UKSC 24

Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 : CIPAA Applies Prospectively & Not Retrospectively

13th March 2018 [Revised & published in March 2018]The Court of Appeal in the recent case of Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd [B-02(C)(A)-1187-06/2017] held that…

Continue ReadingConstruction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 : CIPAA Applies Prospectively & Not Retrospectively

End of content

No more pages to load