Syarikat Bina Darul Aman Bhd & Anor v Government of Malaysia  MLJU 2381
Ordinarily, it is the Respondent who would seek to set aside an Adjudication Decision under the limited grounds of Section 15 of CIPAA when the Adjudication Decision is decided in favour of the Claimant to avoid having to pay the Adjudicated Sum to the Claimant.
In this case, the Adjudicator dismissed the Claimant’s claims in toto.
Dissatisfied with the Adjudication Decision, the Claimant sought to set aside the Adjudication Decision under Section 15 of CIPAA and a declaration that the Claimant is entitled to recommence CIPAA Adjudication Proceeding against the Respondent.
Decision of High Court
The High Court held that in a case where the Claimant is successful only in part of its claim or the whole claim is dismissed, the Claimant may apply to set aside the Adjudication Decision under Section 15 of CIPAA.
The High Court reasoned that a Claimant comes within the meaning of an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 15 of CIPAA if the Claimant is successful only in part of its claim or the whole claim is dismissed.
It is previously thought that when the Claimant’s claim is dismissed by the Adjudicator, the Claimant can only proceed to commence arbitration / court litigation to recover the payment, which often time could be more expensive and time-consuming.
Following the High Court’s decision, a Claimant may now seek to set aside the Adjudication Decision which is not in its favour wholly or partly under Section 15 of CIPAA.