Introduction
The Kuala Lumpur High Court has held that the appointment of the director of the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) is not justiciable in the Malaysian courts.
On 12 October 2020 the high court struck out two originating summonses against the former director of the AIAC, the late Vinayak Pradhan.(1)
The originating summonses were taken out by Prestij Mega Construction Sdn Bhd against the claimants in two separate adjudication proceedings. Prestij Mega sought to set aside the adjudication decisions on the grounds that, among other things, the appointments of the adjudicators were invalid. To this end, Prestij Mega sought declarations that:
Introduction
The year 2019 witnessed a myriad of statutory adjudication disputes in Malaysia. The surge in the number of disputes involving the statutory adjudication mechanism in the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act (CIPAA) 2012 also led to a significant number of consequential challenges to adjudication decisions in the courts. This article highlights the notable decisions handed down by the Malaysian courts in 2019 and their effect on the future application of the CIPAA.
Prospective effect of CIPAA
The following noteworthy appeals marked the beginning of a dramatic departure from the retrospective effect of the CIPAA observed since its enactment in April 2014:
Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd v Bauer (M) Sdn Bhd ([2020] 1 MLJ 174); and