17/11/2023
We are pleased to announce that our Mr. Deepak Mahadevan (assisted by Ms Faeza Suraya Roselan and Ms Jas Lim Fang Ni) recently successfully argued an appeal for our client, Bond M&E Sdn Bhd in the Court of Appeal. The appeal was against part of the High Court’s decision dealing with a novel point of law pertaining to section 30 of CIPAA, i.e. does the phrase “adjudicated amount” in section 30 of CIPAA cover both interest and cost awarded by the Adjudicator?
The Court of Appeal’s grounds of judgment has been reported in Pali PTP Sdn Bhd v Bond M&E Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2023] 6 MLJ 176 and [2023] 9 CLJ 740.
The Court of Appeal’s decision resolves the conflict in interpretation of the phrase adjudicated amount in section 30 of CIPAA by the High Court in Bond M&E Sdn Bhd v Pali PTP Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 CLJ 543 and Cabnet Systems (M) Sdn Bhd v Dekad Kaliber Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 187.
The High Court in Bond M&E Sdn Bhd (supra) held that the phrase adjudicated amount in section 30(5) CIPAA excluded interest and cost whilst the High Court in Cabnet Systems (supra) held that the phrase adjudicated amount in section 30(5) CIPAA included interest but excluded costs.
The Court of Appeal in Bond M&E Sdn Bhd (supra) agreed with our submission that the only definition of the phrase “adjudicated amount” in section 30 of CIPAA that is aligned with the intention of CIPAA and a reading of CIPAA as a whole is that it includes interest and costs awarded in the Adjudication Decision.
As such, insofar as a direct payment application under section 30 of CIPAA is concerned, the Court of Appeal has conclusively found that if an order for direct payment is made against a principal, the principal must pay the entire amount in the Adjudication Decision to the unpaid party, including interest and costs.
There has been no leave application filed at the Federal Court and therefore, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bond M&E Sdn Bhd (supra) puts this conflict to rest.
