concealment of the fact that Vigour did not have a valid certificate of registration issued under sub-s 25(1) of the Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia Act 1994 (‘ CIDB Act’).Whether the following actions would constitute as fraudulent acts:.

Whether a party seeking to raise that an Adjudication Decision has been improperly procured through fraud must prove that the act of fraud was directly committed by a party in whose favour an Adjudication Decision is given?.KPF then sought to set aside the AD under all four limbs of section 15 of CIPAA. On, the Adjudicator issued the AD in the favour of Vigour for the Adjudicated Amount of RM 2,173,766.00. In view of the dispute between the parties, a payment claim was issued by Vigour to KPF pursuant to section 5 of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) for the total amount of RM2,262,500.00. On, KPF exercised its rights pursuant to Clause 28 of the conditions of the closed tender, which was incorporated as part of the contractual terms, to terminate the contract with Vigour. In KPF’s letter to Vigour dated, KPF stated that it had conducted a site visit on and found that the condition of the Claycrete road was not in accordance with the tender specifications, and KPF has requested a written explanation on this matter as well as the status of the 3 years guarantee for the Claycrete road following the termination of the distribution rights of Claycrete in Malaysia which was granted to Vigour. During the contract period, Vigour had submitted the 1st Progress Payment Claim for works done up to, however no payment was made to Vigour despite exchanging a series of letters with KPF from November 2018 until January 2019. KPF, by way of the Surat Setuju Terima Tawaran Sebagai Pembekal Dan Penyedia dated (‘SST’), had accepted Vigour’s offer in the closed tender for the project described as “Membekal Tenaga Buruh, Peralatan, Bahan Dan Penghantaran Ke Tapak Untuk Cadangan Kerja-Kerja Pembinaan Jalan Claycrete Untuk Jalan Ke Kilang Sawit Ensengei Di Ladang Samarahan, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak” (‘Project’) for the contract sum of RM4,400,550.00 and subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the SST. The appellant, KPF Niaga Sdn Bhd (‘KPF’), is the plaintiff in the first originating summons, who made an application to the Court to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated (“AD”), and the respondent, Vigour Builders Sdn Bhd (‘Vigour’), is the plaintiff in the second originating summons who made an application to the Court to enforce the said AD.

Surat setuju terima tawaran