Kes View Esteem v Bina Puri Holdings adalah sebuah kes yang diputuskan di Mahkamah Persekutuan pada bulan November tahun 2017. Kes ini menjadi rujukan untuk isu tuntutan CIPAA yang melibatkan permasalahan bidang kuasa Adjudikator dan juga berkenaan dengan penggantungan keputusan Adjudikasi.

Di antara dapatan-dapatan menarik yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah di dalam kes ini adalah seperti berikut:

(a) Mahkamah perlu membezakan keadaan di mana CIPAA adalah tidak terpakai dengan keadaan di mana CIPAA terpakai, tetapi Adjudikator yang bertindak dibawah CIPAA telah melangkau bidang kuasa beliau sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di s.15 (d) Akta tersebut. Perbezaan ini (in excess of jurisdiction or absolute lack of jurisdiction) adalah penting di dalam situasi di mana bidang kuasa adjudikator itu ingin di cabar di Mahkamah. Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa sekiranya pihak-pihak ingin mencabar keterpakaian CIPAA, ianya boleh dilakukan pada bila-bila masa dan tidak semestinya semasa permohonan untuk mengenepikan sesuatu Keputusan Adjudikasi itu dibuat dan difailkan.

In the circumstances, the appellant was right in not invoking s 15 of the Act at the beginning in making its application to challenge jurisdiction because it could not on the one hand complain that the Act did not apply to the case and yet on the other hand invoke a provision of the Act to seek relief. As such, a jurisdictional challenge could be made at any time and not only upon an application to set aside an adjudication award 

(b) Mahkamah juga telah memutuskan bahawa CIPAA tidak terpakai untuk sesuatu tuntutan interim yang mana tuntutan kumulatif nya telah dimulakan di Mahkamah atau melalui Arbitrasi/Timbangtara sebelum CIPAA berkuat kuasa melalui s.41 Akta.

It would be sufficient to establish a right of exclusion under s 41 of the Act if the paying party demonstrated that a claim covering the present claim had previously been commenced in court or arbitration because in the construction industry, progress claims (on which interim certificates were issued) were cumulative in nature and did not exist in separate stand-alone compartments. In the present case, the contract between the parties and the progress claims did not stand alone in separate compartments but were cumulative in nature.

An adjudicator was not excluded from considering all the defences raised by a respondent in the adjudication response whether found in the first response under s 6 of the Act. Where an adjudicator had failed to do so, he was said to be in breach of natural justice. Based on a careful consideration of ss 6(4), 15, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Act it was clear that an adjudicator who wrongly ruled out considering a defence presented to him would be in breach of natural justice. In the present case, the adjudicator had wrongly construed the scope of his jurisdiction under s 27(1) of the Act by refusing to consider all the defences raised in the adjudication response. Therefore, such a decision by the adjudicator could not stand.

(d) Ujian lazim yang diguna pakai bagi Mahkamah sebelum membenarkan sesuatu permohonan untuk menggantung sesuatu keputusan iaitu wujudkan keadaan yang khas (special circumstances), tidak seharusnya di gunakan. Untuk suatu permohonan untuk menggantung keputusan Adjudkasi dibawah s.16 Akta haruslah dinilai secara merit dari satu kes ke kes. 

The correct approach for a stay under s 16 of the Act would be to evaluate each case on its merits without the fetter of a pre-determined test not found in the section itself namely the financial capacity of the contractor to repay. It could be a factor but not the only factor. Under s 16 of the Act the courts could stay an adjudication decision when there were clear errors, or to meet the justice of the individual case and any attempt to restrict the application of s 16 of the Act in the manner proposed by the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, would be to strip it of any utility.

(e) Mahkamah juga menyatakan bahawa sesuatu permohonan untuk menggantung keputusan adjudikasi di bawah s.16 Akta boleh difailkan bersama dengan sesuatu permohonan untuk mengenepikan keputusan Adjudikasi di bawah s.15 Akta. 

Further, it was wholly appropriate that an application for stay under s 16 of the Act be filed together with an application to set aside an award under s 15 of the Act.