Does a tribunal have to undertake a prospective delay assessment, followed by a retrospective assessment, when reviewing the EOT decisions of a contract administrator? This may be an implication from the recent TCC case of Mace Construct.
Tag: adjudication
Parallels
Is a contractor limited by the FIDIC Yellow Book (2nd Ed, 2017) to refer disputes only to the Dispute Avoidance Adjudication Board (“DAAB”)? Or does he have parallel rights under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) which he can invoke to initiate statutory adjudication? Continue reading “Parallels”
BYPASS
The subcontractor wins an adjudication against the main contractor, and asks the employer to pay him the awarded amount. The employer says it does not owe money to the main contractor, because it has claims against the main contractor after terminating the main contract. The main contractor disputes the termination. Will the courts – in the subcontractor’s direct payment application – decide who is right and who is wrong in the main contract dispute in order to ascertain whether money is owed to the main contractor (and hence can be paid directly to the subcontractor)? The Court of Appeal dealt with this recently in JDI Buildtech (M) Sdn Bhd v Danga Jed Development Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2024] CLJU 373. Continue reading “BYPASS”
WHO IS THE EMPLOYER?
There is usually no doubt as to who the employer is under the construction contract. But once in a while, a case like G-Pile System Sdn Bhd v CMMC Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 1727 comes along to show how things can go wrong when roles are fluid and proper documentation is lacking. Continue reading “WHO IS THE EMPLOYER?”
VIEW ESTEEM CASE – ADJUDICATION DECISIONS CAN NOW BE STAYED DUE TO “CLEAR ERRORS”
On 6 November 2017, the Federal Court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd widened the grounds on which an adjudication decision can be stayed, to include “clear errors” and “justice of the individual case”. As a result, there is now less certainty whether a successful claimant would be able to enforce the adjudication decision.
Continue reading “VIEW ESTEEM CASE – ADJUDICATION DECISIONS CAN NOW BE STAYED DUE TO “CLEAR ERRORS””
VIEW ESTEEM CASE – PAYMENT RESPONSE NOW A DEAD LETTER?
On 6 November 2017, the Federal Court made a landmark decision that changed what was thought to be established law under the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”). The decision was delivered in the case of View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd. The decision significantly affected two areas – (a) jurisdiction of an adjudicator vis-à-vis the payment response; and (b) stay of an adjudication decision. This post shall address the first area, leaving the second area to a subsequent post.
Continue reading “VIEW ESTEEM CASE – PAYMENT RESPONSE NOW A DEAD LETTER?”
ADJUDICATION UNDER CIPAA – AN INTRODUCTION
Statutory adjudication is a relatively new method of dispute resolution in Malaysia. It was introduced in 2014 when the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) came into force. The main purpose of CIPAA is to provide a speedy mechanism for resolving payment disputes arising from construction contracts. This is with a view to ease the case flow of contractors.
Continue reading “ADJUDICATION UNDER CIPAA – AN INTRODUCTION”