GIIB Healthcare Products Sdn Bhd v Glomaxes Latex Glove Manufacturer Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s): Giib Healthcare Products Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Glomaxes Latex Glove Manufacturer Sdn Bhd

• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan
• YA Dato' Sri Latifah Binti Haji Mohd Tahar

• The respondent was engaged (via an assigned purchase order) to fabricate, install and commission a glove dipping production line in the appellant's factory building, but the appellant failed to pay progress claims for the works carried out.
• The respondent commenced adjudication proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), and the adjudicator ruled in its favour, ordering payment of over RM14 million plus interest and costs.
• The appellant did not pay and applied to the High Court to set aside the adjudication decision, while the respondent applied to enforce it; the High Court dismissed the setting-aside application and allowed enforcement, prompting the appellant's appeal.

• Whether the works undertaken (installation of a glove-dipping production line) constituted "construction work" within the meaning of s. 4 of CIPAA, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the adjudicator.
• Whether the installed equipment, alleged by the appellant to be a removable chattel akin to a vending machine, was instead a fixture affixed to the building such that the underlying contract qualified as a "construction contract" under CIPAA.
• Whether construction work under CIPAA must be carried out concomitantly with the construction of the building itself, or could also include works carried out after a building's completion.

• The Court of Appeal held that an appellate court reviewing a High Court decision on discretionary matters (such as setting aside or enforcing an adjudication decision) should not interfere absent a wrong principle applied, irrelevant matters considered, or a decision no reasonable court could have reached.
• Applying common law fixture principles, the Court found that the works were affixed to the building by fasteners (not merely resting by their own weight) and were intended for the permanent enjoyment of the building's purpose (glove production), thus constituting a fixture and hence "construction work" under s. 4 of CIPAA.
• The Court further held that construction work under CIPAA need not be performed concomitantly with the construction of the building — it may occur before (e.g., piling) or after (e.g., renovation) building completion — and accordingly dismissed both appeals with costs of RM15,000 each, upholding the High Court's refusal to set aside and its enforcement of the adjudication decision.