JUDGMENT

Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJ:

[1] The appeals before us raised questions of significance relating to an application for a stay under s 16 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) in particular whether a stay can be granted under s 16(1)(b) CIPAA after the adjudication decision is enforced under s 28 CIPAA as an Order of the Court.

[2] In Appeal No. 02(f)-2-01/2023 (W), the questions for this Court's determination are as follows:

Question 1

Whether an adjudication decision, after having been enforced pursuant to s 28 of CIPAA 2012 as an Order of the Court can be stayed pursuant to s 16(1)(b) of the CIPAA 2012.

Question 2

Whether the Court of Appeal in so deciding to allow the stay application pursuant to s 16(1)(b) CIPAA 2012 has overruled or disagreed, or gone beyond the ratio decidendi of the Federal Court decision in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Holdings Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 MLRA 460; [2018] 2 MLJ 22; [2019] 5 CLJ 479; [2017] 8 AMR 167.

[3] The questions of law in Appeal No. 02(f)-34-05/2023(W) are as follows:

(1) Is the 'financial capacity to repay' test the determinative criteria in considering an application for stay pursuant to s 16 of the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act ("CIPAA"), in view of the liberalised interpretation on the ground of "justice of the case" by the Federal Court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 1 MLRA 460; [2018] 2 MLJ 22; [2019] 5 CLJ 479; [2017] 8 AMR 167; in light of the conflicting decisions by the Court of Appeal in ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v. Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd And Other Appeals [2023] 1 MLRA 646; [2022] 6 MLJ 392; [2023] 1 CLJ 1 and ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v. Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd [2023] 5 MLRA 515; [2023] 4 MLJ 720; [2023] 7 CLJ 374 [Civil Appeal No. W-02(C)(A)-443- 03/2021]?