Statutory Adjudication In Malaysia And ‘sabah Proceeding’: A Paradox?
A Commentary On Tekun Cemerlang Sdn Bhd V Vinci Construction Grands Projets Sdn Bhd [2021] 11 Mlj 50
By Grace Chaw

---

INTRODUCTION

In Tekun Cemerlang Sdn Bhd v Vinci Construction Grands Projets Sdn Bhd3 (‘Tekun Cemerlang’), the High Court decided that a lawyer who is not authorised to practise as an advocate in Sabah cannot be appointed to represent a party in an adjudication if that adjudication satisfies certain elements connected to Sabah. In this case, the term ‘Sabah proceeding’ was used to describe such an adjudication.4 The decision restricts parties’ choice of representatives and changes how the industry had previously understood the phrase ‘any representative’ in s 8(3) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (‘CIPAA’).5 This article looks at how the chimera of a ‘Sabah proceeding’ was endorsed in Tekun Cemerlang, although CIPAA does not recognise such a concept…

---

Download the PDF to continue reading