Profile of cases relating to CIPAA 2012 reffered to court

Abstract

There have been several positive developments in the realm of construction dispute resolution in Malaysia in recent years. The more notable includes, among others, the setting up of Construction Courts and the transformation of the courts system and the implementation of a statutory adjudication regime through the CIPAA 2012. However, there have been instances whereby the adjudication decision was referred to the court in order to set it aside. Therefore, the objective of this research is to develop a profile of these cases. The approach adopted in this research is case law based and only cases between the years 2014 - 2018 reported by Malayan Law Journal will be focused in this study. A total number of 45 cases were studied and the analysis and subsequent findings revealed that there was a total of 25 cases whereby the adjudication decision was set aside due to the adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction, followed by 18 cases due to a denial of natural justice, 4 cases in which the adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially and 2 cases whereby the process of the proceedings was improperly procured through fraud or bribery, In summary, finding of this research will be able to increase the awareness of the construction players of the current scenario in relation to payment disputes as well as to assist them in addressing and overcoming the problems associated to payment disputes in Malaysian construction industry.