Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 JULY 2023

Case Update: Challenging An Adjudication Decision: Unveiling The Quest For A Stay

Facts ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd (the 'Appellant') had engaged Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd (the 'Respondent'), for a construction project. Works were supposed to be completed by January 2018...

MalaysiaReal Estate and Construction
Zul Rafique & Partners
Zul Rafique & Partners

CONSTRUCTION LAW
Construction Dispute – Adjudication Process – Payment Disputes – Stay of Adjudication – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA)

ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd
Civil Appeal No. W-02(C)(A)-1801-11/2020|Court of Appeal
- see the grounds of judgment here

Facts ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd (the 'Appellant') had engaged Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd (the 'Respondent'), for a construction project. Works were supposed to be completed by January 2018 however, the date of completion was extended to April 2018. Nevertheless, the works were not completed by the extended completion date and parties were not able to achieve an agreement on a further completion date. As a result, the Appellant's architect retrospectively issued a certificate of non-completion entitling the Appellant to deduct or recover liquidated and ascertained damages for late completion of the works from the Respondent. Since the commencement of the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from