Blog – CIPAA Malaysia Case Studies

Can parties contract out of CIPAA 2012?*
In the case of Aspen Glove Sdn Bhd v Tialoc Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2024] 7 CLJ 1, the Court of Appeal had to consider the case of parties who signed...
||
continue reading
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