摘要：The construction industry is a fertile source of dispute. Payment disputes in the Malaysian construction industry are ancient issues that have been causing problems among construction players for decades. The settlement of disputes can be done by using the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in lieu of other alternatives or as a complement to Litigation. This paper is focused on Adjudication as a preferred dispute resolution method for the Malaysian construction industry. The enforcement of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act (CIPAA 2012) in 2014 is intended to provide swift dispute resolution and relief to unpaid construction industry claimants for work done, and facilitate cash flow in the construction industry as a whole. The purpose of this research is to establish the trends of adjudication cases that were intervened by the court within the period of April 2014 until February 2018, which is since the implementation of CIPAA 2012 in Malaysia. In order to determine a vast majority of matters that have been referred for adjudication under CIPAA 2012 and parties in dispute constitute the highest number of referrals, sixty-two court cases were identified. This research also reviewed previous case laws to identify the factors contributing to court referrals. Based on the review, most of adjudication cases in the Malaysian construction industry involve the Main contractor and Employer as dispute parties with the intention of challenging adjudication decisions as there has been excess of jurisdiction pursuant to Section 15 (d) applied by appellants together with the application enforcement of adjudication decision under Section 28 by respondents. The findings will be used as a platform to establish the dispute scenario of the Malaysian construction industry under the CIPAA 2012.
