COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF STATUTORY ADJUDICATION IN MALAYSIA

Abstract

The dynamic nature of the construction industry makes it almost impossible to maintain a project without any disputes. Of all the addressed disputes in the construction industry, payment disputes are seen to be the most critical issue to be apprehended; as there is no doubt that consistent cashflow is important to distinguish the project’s development and achievements. Adjudication is one of the remedies to assist in arresting these problems, and the way to make an impact to the implementation of adjudication is by having it an enforceable statute. Along the years, fourteen adjudication Acts have been introduced within the Commonwealth countries. As the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 is a hybrid of few adjudication systems in the world, a comparative study on three adjudication Acts: the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 of the UK – the first statutory adjudication implemented, Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 of Australia – consists of a unique set of judicial systems that needs to be considered separately and Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 of Singapore – one of the latest implemented statutory adjudication before CIPAA; were looked into, and possible matters affecting their effective implementation were emphasized. This review aims to assist in identifying the possible issues that might be faced by the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) as a newly legislated Act in Malaysia and possible corrective measures that could be undertaken to enhance its effectiveness.