Category Archives: ILO

Adjudicator is Bias for Unreasonable Deadlines & Failure to Account for MCO Restrictions

Whilst an adjudicator has wide discretionary powers under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, can such discretionary power disregard or bypass the restrictions provided in the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) Regulations 2020 [P.U. (A) 91/2020] more commonly known as the ‘Movement Control Order’?

The High Court upon scrutinising the adjudicator’s conduct in Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd v Savelite Engineering Sdn Bhd and other cases held that there was actual bias by the Adjudicator for amongst others, failing to give effect to the MCO.

Covid Act: “Inability to Perform Contractual Obligation” tested in Courts

Part II of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 (“Covid Act”), which relieves contracting parties with inability to perform contractual obligations, has come into operation retrospectively on 18 March 2020 upon the enforcement of Covid Act on 23 October 2020. In June 2021, the former Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) – Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Bin Hassan made another extension order to extend the operation period of Part II from 1 July 2021 to 31 December 2021.[2] Thus, for the time being, Part II protection is still available to eligible businesses at least until the end of this year.

CIPAA: clash of stay applications and enforcement orders

Once a successful party obtains an adjudication decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act (CIPAA) 2012, the next course of action is usually to enforce the adjudication decision pursuant to section 28 of the CIPAA (enforcement order). Meanwhile, the losing party will often attempt to set aside or stay the adjudication decision under sections 15 or 16 of the CIPAA.

However, what if an application to stay is made after an enforcement order is granted against the adjudication decision and the application to set aside the adjudication decision is dismissed? The court was faced with this scenario in the recent case of MKP Builders Sdn Bhd v PC Geotechnic Sdn Bhd [(2021) MLJU 1061].

Challenging compensation for acquired land: high court is the final avenue

Article 13 of the Federal Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law” and allows for a
lawful acquisition of private land by the government, provided that the acquisition is in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act (LAA)
1960. Under the LAA, landowners (or persons with registered interests) will be compensated by the government for acquired land. That said, landowners often find themselves dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the land administrator. While there is an
opportunity for landowners to object to the compensation, the question remains as to what extent the compensation awarded by the land
administrator can be challenged. The Federal Court recently answered this question in its decision in Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor v Nusantara Daya Sdn Bhd. The apex court held that the high court is the highest court that parties can go to when challenging the
awarded compensation.

Oppression actions: court’s discretion has limits

Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) provides wide powers to the Court to grant remedies as it deems necessary to bring an end to the matters complained of in an oppression action. In Lee Kai Wuen v Lee Yee Wuen, the Federal Court refused leave…

Court rules that management corporation may sue developer for latent defects in common property

A statutory duty to “properly maintain the common property and keep it in a state of good and serviceable repair” shifts between a developer, a joint management committee and a management corporation subject to the timeline provided in the Strata Management Act 2013. However, when the baton is passed to a management corporation, does the management corporation have standing to sue the developer for any defects in the common property?

CIPAA: adjudicators’ powers to order remedies and interest when payment clause is unenforceable

Section 25 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act (CIPAA) 2012 lists adjudicators’ extensive powers in adjudication proceedings, including the power to award financing costs and interest. The recent high court decision in First Commerce Sdn Bhd v Titan Vista Sdn Bhd and another case(1) examined the extent of an adjudicator’s powers to determine remedies and interest in unique circumstances where a payment clause was void and the default statutory implied payment provision in the CIPAA was pleaded.

Apex court considers application of Prest in piercing corporate veil

A separate legal entity – or rather, a ‘corporate veil’ – exists to separate a corporate entity from its incorporators upon incorporation. Citing the century-old case Solomon v A Solomon & Co Ltd, Justice Nallini Pathmanathan stated the following in Ong Leong Chiou v Keller (M) Sdn Bhd…

Calling on performance bonds: new test for unconscionability?

The recent Federal Court decision in Catajaya Sdn Bhd v Shoppoint Sdn Bhd has breathed new life into the interpretation of termination clauses in contracts. Indeed, it sounded a cautionary note to the business community at large when the Federal Court held that termination clauses must be interpreted strictly.

Wishing our Muslim friends a blessed and prosperous Eid al-Fitr! Selamat Hari Raya, Maaf Zahir dan Batin