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?”
Tag: construction claims
AFFIRM CONTRACT, LOSE LAD
Affirming a construction contract – instead of terminating it due to the contractor’s delay – resulted in the loss of entitlement to liquidated and ascertained damages (“LAD”). This was one of the grounds for dismissing a LAD claim in the recent High Court case of Universiti Tecknologi MARA v Magna Metier Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 AMR 583. Continue reading “AFFIRM CONTRACT, LOSE LAD”
LOOK FORWARD OR LOOK BACK?
Causation of delay in construction disputes is usually the subject of expert evidence, in the form of a delay analysis of the project. The entire project duration is analysed, to establish the cause and effect of delay events encountered. The analysis is relevant to determine entitlements to extension of time (“EOT”) to complete the works, and compensation for delays. The perennial issue that commonly arises is whether the analysis should be prospective or retrospective. Continue reading “LOOK FORWARD OR LOOK BACK?”
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”