S.S. Tieh's Malaysian Law Updates

There are 4 conditions to be satisfied in an application for direct payment from an employer per Section 30 of the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012. In TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN BHD v. KL ECO CITY SDN BHD [2026] MLRAU 110 , the Court of Appeal held that:   “[22] It has been widely accepted that the case of Cabnet Systems (M) Sdn Bhd v. Dekad Kaliber Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] 3 MLRH 83; [2020] 3 AMR 257 has laid down the conditions which must be fulfilled for an application under sec 30 CIPAA to be satisfied. In that case Wong Kian Kheong J (now JCA) had held, "[29] I am of the following view regarding the application of s 30 CIPAA: (1) a party (X) who has obtained an adjudication decision against another party (Y), may claim for the adjudicated amount from Y's principal (Z) if the following four conditions are satisfied (4 Conditions)- (a) Y has failed to pay the adjudicated amount to X [please see s 30(1) and (3)CIPAA] (1st Condition); (b) X has ...

  In Sapura Mohd Noh v. Sentosa Medical Centre Sdn Bhd & Anor [2026] MLRHU 655 , the High Court observed as follows:   “[35] In Beatrice AT Fernandez v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & Anor [2005] 1 MELR 1; [2005] 1 MLRA 320; [2005] 3 MLJ 681; [2005] 2 CLJ 713; [2005] 4 AMR 1, the Federal Court reaffirmed that causes of action based on violation of constitutional rights could arise only if the 'violating party' is the Legislature or the Executive or its agencies, ie has statutory authority and wields statutory powers. Since the Respondents in this appeal are just two private limited companies with neither statutory authority nor powers, the Appellant's cause of action (if any has arisen) could only have been based on the Employment Contract, ie of a contractual nature, or based on an alleged tort. The relevant passage in the judgment of Abdul Malek Ahmad PCA (as he then was) reads as follows: "To invoke art 8 of the Federal Constitution, the applicant must s...