Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd v Setiakon Builders Sdn Bhd

Court of Appeal · · Civil Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd v Setiakon Builders Sdn Bhd
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date29 September 2025
Date Uploaded6 November 2025
Legal TopicsCivil Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s): Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Setiakon Builders Sdn Bhd

Bench
  • YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
  • YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril
  • YA Tuan Ong Chee Kwan
Facts & Background
  • The respondent, a main contractor, was appointed by the appellant for a construction project under a PAM Contract 2006.
  • The respondent claimed unpaid sums, including balances from two interim certificates (No. 44R and 46), retention sum, and late payment interest (LPI) for various certificates (No. 1-46), totalling RM8,809,403.93.
  • An adjudicator awarded the respondent RM4,131,813.45 (comprising certificate balances and LPI, but dismissing the retention sum claim as premature), which the High Court subsequently affirmed and ordered to be enforced, while dismissing the appellant's application to set aside the decision.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the adjudicator breached natural justice under Section 15(b) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) by failing to consider the appellant's defences.
  • Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under Section 15(d) of CIPAA by awarding late payment interest, particularly for principal amounts that had already been fully paid.
  • Whether the appellant was estopped from raising a jurisdictional challenge at the setting aside stage, having not raised it during the adjudication proceedings.
Decision
  • The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal in part, holding that a claim for stand-alone late payment interest for principal sums already fully paid does not fall within the definition of "payment for work done or services rendered" under Section 4 of CIPAA.
  • The Court ruled that the adjudicator lacked core jurisdiction to adjudicate and award late payment interest for certificates where the principal amounts had been fully settled prior to the payment claim.
  • The Court varied the adjudicated sum by deducting the portion of the award related to late payment interest on fully settled certificates, but upheld the award for unpaid certificate balances and consequential interest on those unpaid amounts.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!