Blog – CIPAA Malaysia Case Studies

Lion Pacific v Pestech – how about uncertified sums?
By s 35 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA 2012”), all conditional payment clauses are void. In Lion Pacific Sdn Bhd v Pestech Technology Sdn Bhd and...
||
continue reading
Need to Plead Specifically for CIPAA
Need to Plead Specifically for CIPAA
||
continue reading
Initiative may not be a good thing
One would imagine that demonstrating initiative is a good virtue. However, the same may not be the case if the person showing initiative happens to be the adjudicator. In Cescon...
||
continue reading
Lump Sum with BQ Attached
In this episode, we consider whether a lump-sum contract with BQ attached renders the contract to become a re-measurement contract.
||
continue reading
CLM: Conditional Payments
In this episode, we explore the question whether conditional payments in construction contracts are void only for purposes of adjudication under CIPAA or void generally.
||
continue reading
CLM 20220124 Staying CIPAA decision won by foreign company?
In this episode, we consider whether the fact that the contractor is a foreign entity would justify a stay of a CIPAA decision.
||
continue reading
Of Dates, Estoppel and Adjudicator’s Prior Experience
It is common belief that adjudications unduly favour the unpaid party and that attempts to set aside the decision are ordinarily unsuccessful. This is due to the courts adopting a...
||
continue reading
Test for Bias Against an Adjudicator
S 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA 2012”) provides that an aggrieved party may apply to the High Court to set aside an adjudication decision...
||
continue reading
The Burden of Proof under S30 CIPAA 2012
S30 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA 2012”) provides that where a subcontractor (“SC”) has obtained a favourable decision in adjudication against the main contractor (“MC”),...
||
continue reading