SKS Pavillion Sdn Bhd v Tasoon Injection Pile Sdn Bhd  9 MLJ 396 This High Court’s decision highlighted the importance
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012
CASE UPDATE: The Failure to file CIPAA Payment Response does not preclude the raising of New Defences in Adjudication Response
View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd  2 MLJ 22
By virtue of the Federal Court’s decision, there is no repercussion to a Non-Paying Party/ Respondent in not filing the Payment Response.
For strategic reason, the Non-Paying Party/Respondent may want to submit a scanty Payment Response or not submitting the Payment Response at all to preserve the element of surprise and ambush the Unpaid Party/Claimant at the Adjudication Response stage, bearing in mind that the Unpaid Party/Claimant only has 5 working days to file Adjudication Reply from the receipt of Adjudication Response.
Syarikat Bina Darul Aman Bhd & Anor v Government of Malaysia  MLJU 2381
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.
In this case, 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.
Syarikat Bina Darul Aman Berhad & Anor vs Government of Malaysia  MLJU 2381
Previously, it is often thought that a ‘loss and expense’ claim arises out of the employer’s delay is not claimable under CIPAA as it is regarded as special damages.
In this case, the High Court clarified that an Unpaid Party / Claimant may claim for loss and expense arising from delays beyond its control in a CIPAA Adjudication Proceeding.
CONTACT US NOW
FIRST CONSULTATION IS FREE
NEWS & UPDATE
Submit your email address above to receive the latest news & updates on CIPAA.
*We do NOT send advertising emails to subscribers.