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.
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.
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.