Schedule
Schedule 43 of CBD 3) This is logical as materials are delivered to site with invoices and DOs. However, in the case S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw of completed work on site for purposes of valuation, DOs are impractical. It is valuation on site by the person or persons responsible that is required. In this case, the Claimant had requested the Respondent to undertake the valuation of work done on site after the stop work order but the Respondent did not do so. (ii) Even after the Claimant carried out its measurement exercise on site and valuation, and submitted its Final Claim based on the said exercise, the Respondent did not comment, clarify or query despite 2 reminders by the Claimant. All the supporting details for the Final Claim were submitted to the Respondent for it to measure completed work on site. The Respondent never responded. (iv) On this issue, the Claimant’s argument that the requirement of DOs must be looked at holistically is reasonable and I agree with that submission. As it stood the Respondent was not interested in attending a joint site valuation with the Claimant. Further the Respondent never invited or requested the Claimant to attend the site valuation which the former conducted with Meinhardt.” 51. Evidently, this is not the case where the Adjudicator decided the dispute on a factual or legal basis that was never raised nor canvassed by parties. 52. This is an exercise of evaluation and interpretation, not procedural unfairness. S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw 53. In any event, even assuming that further submissions should/ might have been made, Infinite has not demonstrated how the outcome would realistically have differed. Materiality has not been established. No material prejudice has been demonstrated; there is no real possibility that further submission would have produced a different outcome. 54. In my judgment, this ground amounts to disagreement with the Adjudicator’s reasoning and it does not amount to a denial of natural justice. 55. Thus, the complaint fell short of the threshold required under S. 15(b) of CIPAA. Consequently, the challenge under S.15 (b) of CIPAA failed. (c) Alleged failure of Adjudicator to consider other defences 56. Infinite submitted that the Adjudicator has failed to consider the issue of additional payment of RM150,000.00 made to Victory Builders. 57. An adjudicator is not required to address every submission exhaustively and with forensic precision, it suffices that the AD demonstrates that the issue was considered. 58. The AD read fairly shows that the Adjudicator did consider prior payments and made deductions accordingly. S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw 59. At its highest, I find that this complaint relates to either the weight attributed to the evidence or the sufficiency of reasoning. Either way, an alleged failure to give weight to a particular contention is a merits complaint, are not reviewable and not a breach of natural justice. (ii) Alleged Excess of Jurisdiction (a) Term 2 60. Infinite further argued that the Adjudicator has acted in excess of jurisdiction by determining the applicability of Term 2 of the PO, which according to Infinite was not raised in the Payment Claim. 61. This submission is wholly misconceived. 62. The record shows that Term 2 was raised by Infinite itself as a defence in the Adjudication Response. As such Victory Builders was entitled under S. 11 of CIPAA to address that issue in its Adjudication Reply. 63. The Adjudicator was correspondingly entitled, and indeed obliged, to consider and determine the issue. 64. The Court must carefully distinguish between whether the Adjudicator has decided the dispute on a contractual basis not relied in the Payment Claim (which may amount to excess of jurisdiction, which then becomes a jurisdictional issue) or the Adjudicator merely interpreted or evaluated the contractual entitlement by reference to S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw surrounding facts and conduct (which is within jurisdiction and is a merit issue). 65. I find that the subject matter referred to adjudication was clear : non-payment of the Final Claim (IPC No. 5). 66. The Adjudicator decided precisely those matters in the AD. 67. Reference to “(T)his is logical as materials are delivered to site with invoices and DOs. However, in the case of completed work on site for purposes of valuation, DOs are impractical. It is valuation on site by the person or persons responsible that is required” and thereafter “(A)ll the supporting details for the Final Claim were submitted to the Respondent for it to measure completed work on site” when interpreting whether the DO requirement applied to the valuation of completed works fell squarely within the subject matter of the adjudication. 68. I note the scope of works undertaken by Victory Builders under the Purchase Order and likewise am of the view that, in respect of the items listed under Sections C, D, E and F, the requirement for signed DOs would be impracticable, given that the works comprised piling, structural works, a concrete driveway, a TNB compact substation (structure), surau building works, and retaining walls, among others. 69. The conclusion made by the Adjudicator that the DOs were appropriate for materials delivered to site but impractical for completed works which require measurement fell within the realm of contractual interpretation and factual evaluation. S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw 70. Whether the reasoning is correct is immaterial. Even if erroneous, it is an error within jurisdiction, not an excess of jurisdiction. Since an application under s 15 is not an appeal, the decision of the adjudicator cannot be reviewed on merits (Bina Puri Construction Sdn Bhd v Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2016] 7 MLJcon 119). 71. At its highest, the challenge is to the correctness of the findings, which lies beyond the supervisory remit of this Court. 72. Accordingly, no excess of jurisdiction is established. (b) Ancillary findings 73. Infinite’s complaint concerning the Adjudicator’s findings on matters such as site conduct or trespass amounts to much ado about nothing. 74. At most, this was ancillary observations made by the Adjudicator and did not constitute the basis of the award and did not amount to jurisdictional overreach. Conclusion 75. When reviewed in its entirety, Infinite’s case is an attempt to challenge the Adjudicator’s evaluation of evidence presented, dispute her interpretation of contractual provisions and revisit factual findings. S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw 76. Such matters lie outside the scope of S. 15 of CIPAA. 77. Having carefully considered the affidavits and submissions, I am satisfied that :- (i) Infinite was accorded procedural fairness throughout the adjudication process; (ii) the Adjudicator had acted within the jurisdiction conferred by CIPAA; and (iii) the complaints advanced are, in substance, attempts to reopen the merits of the AD. 78. This Court will not interfere with an AD unless one of the limited statutory grounds under S. 15 is clearly made out. That threshold has not been met in the present case. 79. CIPAA is designed to ensure cash flow in the construction industry through swift adjudication process. The Court’s role is supervisory, not appellate. Unless a clear case of procedural injustice or jurisdictional transgression is established, the Adjudicator’s decision must stand. Analysis of OS 25 (Enforcement of AD) 80. S. 28(1) of CIPAA states as follows: Enforcement of adjudication decision as judgment S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw “A party may enforce an adjudication decision by applying to the High Court for an order to enforce the adjudication decision as if it is a judgment or order of the High Court.” 81. In Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd v Puteri Nusantara Sdn Bhd (2019) 2 CLJ 229, the Court of Appeal held that the court may exercise its discretion to grant leave under S.28(1) and (2) of CIPAA to enforce an adjudication decision if 3 conditions are met :- (i) the adjudication decision has been made in favour of the party applying for leave; (ii) the party against whom an adjudication decision has been made, has failed to pay the adjudicated amount on the date specified in the adjudication decision; and (iii) there is no prohibition on the court’s discretionary power to grant leave to enforce the adjudication decision. 82. As there are no merits in the setting aside application, the AD remains valid and in force which remained unpaid by Infinite to Victory Builders. 83. The threshold laid down by the Court of Appeal in Inai Kiara has accordingly been met by Victory Builders for an enforcement order under S. 28 of CIPAA. S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw ORDER (OS 20 AND OS 25) 84. The following orders were made on 10.2.2026 :- (i) OS 20 dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be borne and paid by Infinite to Victory Builders, subject to allocator; (ii) OS 25 allowed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be borne and paid by Infinite to Victory Builders, subject to allocator. Dated : 20th April 2026 t.t ………………………………………… Shahriza Zalina Binti Abdul Shukor Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam For Infinite : Danny Soong Hou Ming Ng Carmen (Messrs. Carmen & Fiona) For Victory Builders : Lee Kai Jun Sia Chee Shen (Messrs. Wayne Siang, Kai & Co.) S/N nHlZ3G87u0ODkok5058hw