Winning at CIPAA

Winning at CIPAA

From November 24, 2021 08:30 until November 24, 2021 17:00

At Zoom Webinar

 Download Brochure



The benefits


Who should attend


What participants have said about Charlton Martin Seminars


CPD Credit Points





Winning Tips for Unpaid Party/Claimant



  1. Who should issue the Payment Claim: The unpaid Party or its Representative?


Components of a Payment Claim

  1. Should the Payment Claim include a claim for interest on an unpaid amount and the cost of the adjudication proceedings?


Procedural Tactics

  1. If an Unpaid Party’s 1st Payment Claim is responded by a Non-Paying Party with a Payment Response and then the Unpaid Party serve a 2nd Payment Claim that has the same contents as the 1st Payment Claim, thus superseding the 1st Payment Claim, should the Non-Paying Party ignore the 2nd Payment Claim without serving a 2nd Payment Response? What will be the consequences of doing so?
  2. How many disputes can be referred to adjudication at the same time?


Anticipating Responses

  1. If an Unpaid Party submits a Payment Claim for a progress claim of, say, RM15 Million but inadvertently omits to mention any failure by the Architect to grant an Extension of Time (EOT) for the Unpaid Party’s EOT applications, and a Non-Paying Party submits a Payment Response for a Liquidated Damages (LDs) set-off of, say, RM17 Million, the LDs will likely zerorise the progress claim of RM15 million if Unpaid Party proceeds to the next stage of adjudication proceeding. What should the Unpaid Party do to avoid its progress claim of RM15 Million from being defeated or “zero-ised” by the LDs set-off?
  2. A Non-Paying Party wrongfully withholds, say, RM15 million being payment for the net value of work done that is due to an Unpaid Party because the former has deducted RM16 Million in Liquidated Damages from the monies due to the latter despite the latter having submitted EOT applications which, if granted by the architect, will erase the former’s Liquidated Damages . What should the Unpaid Party do in order to increase its winning chances of defeating the Non-Paying Party’s set-off of Liquidated Damages and of claiming the RM15 Million in CIPAA Adjudication Proceedings?


Supporting Documents

  1. When an Unpaid Party submits a Payment Claim for a progress claim of RM15 Million and the Payment Claim mentions a failure by the Architect to grant an EOT for the Unpaid Party’s EOT applications, should the Unpaid Party attach EOT applications to the Payment Claim?


Right to Proceed after Negotiating a Settlement

  1. After an Unpaid Party has served a Payment Claim for, say, RM20 Million against a Non-Paying Party, the latter subsequently does not serve any Payment Response but negotiates with the Unpaid Party and signs a settlement agreement for a lesser amount of say RM10 Million. However, because the Non-Paying Party defaults payment by the stipulated due date stated in the settlement agreement, should the Unpaid Party proceed with the existing Payment Claim of say RM20 Million to which the Non-Paying Party has failed to serve a Payment Response?


Adequate Evidence in Support of the Payment Claim

  1. In the absence of an interim payment certificate, does an invoice or progress claim for, say, RM5 Million, being the net value of work done to date from an Unpaid Party to a Non-Paying Party constitute sufficient evidence to prove that, say, RM5 Million is due from the latter to the former in the absence of any certification of the claim amount?
  2. Can the subject matter of an earlier adjudication decision be decided by another adjudicator in a subsequent adjudication?


Mitigation Tips for Non-Paying Party/Respondent


Contracting Out of CIPPA

  1. Can an Employer avoid any Payment Claim from a Contractor by inserting a clause in the Contract that states, “CIPAA shall not apply to this Contract”?


Defeating on First Principles

  1. How to defeat a Payment Claim that is issued by an Unpaid Party’s Representative?
  2. If a Main Contractor receives a Payment Claim from a Sub-Contractor for payment of a progress claim in respect of a contract for fabrication work carried out solely on an island in Indonesia, how should the Main Contractor to defeat the Payment Claim?
  3. If a Non-Paying Party receives a letter of demand from an Unpaid Party claiming for an unpaid amount of RM10 Million in respect of a final account which has been overdue for 4 months under a clause of the contract but the letter invites the Non-Paying Party to offer a settlement sum and includes fine print at the bottom of the letter stating, “This Payment Claim is made under Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012”; then the Non-Paying Party ignores the letter thinking that the letter is a normal letter of demand, and is surprised to receive a Notice of Adjudication from the Unpaid Party 15 days later and the Non-Paying Party realises that it has not served any Payment Response, do these events mean that the adjudication proceedings which follow will be invalid and thus any eventual Adjudication Decision made will also be invalid?


Right of Set-off

  1. Where an Unpaid Party is the Main Contractor who has completed the Works but refused to rectify a list of defects alleged by a Non-Paying Party who is the Employer and who then has not engaged a 3rd party contractor to rectify the defects yet but who is withholding a payment of say RM10 Million being the balance of the Final Account, what is the best strategy for the Non-Paying Party to defeat the Unpaid Party’s Payment Claim for the RM10 Million? The assumption here is that PAM 2006 or PAM 2018 Contract applies where Clause 30.4 thereof sets out the following criteria for the Employer’s entitlement to set-off any expense incurred for defect rectification costs:
    1. The Employer shall give by hand or by registered post to the Main Contractor a written notice of an intention to set-off a specific amount for a specific ground not later than 28 days before any set-off is deducted by the Employer from any payment due to the Main Contractor; and
    2. The Quantity Surveyor shall submit to the Main Contractor a complete assessment of the set-off.
  2. Where an Unpaid Party owes a Non-Paying Party Liquidated Damages of say RM20 Million due to a delay to the completion of the Works for which the Architect has assessed the former’s EOT Applications and found only an EOT entitlement of 2 days and such EOT does not reduce the Liquidated Damages, and where at the same time, the Unpaid Party serves a 1st Payment Claim for an unpaid amount of say RM5 Million under Progress Claim No. 11, if the Non-Paying Party serves a 1st Payment Response stating a set-off of RM20 Million Liquidated Damages, can the Non-Paying Party subsequently serve a 2nd Payment Response stating the same set-off of RM20 Million Liquidated Damages in response to the Unpaid Party’s 2nd Payment Claim for, say, RM9 Million under Progress Claim No. 12?


Jurisdiction and Powers of the Adjudicator


Adequate Evidence in Support of the Payment Claim

  1. Under what circumstances can the appointment of the Adjudicator be challenged by either party?
  2. What choice does the Adjudicator have if the parties are unable to agree to his proposed terms of appointment?
  3. Whether in proceedings under CIPAA, the Adjudicator has the jurisdiction to award both pre-award and post-award interests?
  4. Whether the Adjudicator can award the pre-award and post award interests when it is not claimed in the Adjudication Claim?


Conduct of the Adjudication Proceedings

  1. What can the Adjudicator legitimately ask either party to provide in order to assist him/her in arriving at his decision?
  2. What limitations can the Adjudicator impose on the parties in respect of submissions made by them during the Adjudication Proceedings?
  3. Can the Adjudicator correct errors found in his/her Adjudication Decision?
  4. How should the Adjudicator deal with a late Adjudication Claim, Response or Reply?
  5. How should the adjudicator deal with costs and what is meant by the principle that costs are to follow the event?




08:30 – 09:05: Registration & Introduction
09:05 – 09:55: Session 1
09:55 – 10:45: Session 2
10:45 – 11:05: Morning Break
11:05 – 12:00: Session 3
12:00 – 12:30: Questions & Discussion
12:30 – 14:00: Lunch
14:00 – 14:45: Session 4
14:45 – 15:30: Session 5
15:30 – 15:45: Afternoon Break
15:45 – 16:30: Session 6
16:30 – 17:00: Questions & Discussion
17:00: Close



RM750.00 for 1-3 persons, RM650.00 for 4-10 persons.

For registration of more than 10 pax, please call Sheila K / Azimah for special rates at Tel: 603 2287 5175 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 Early Bird Registration with full payment by 24 October 2021 - RM600 per person


The fee includes PDF course materials

*The seminar fee payable is inclusive of Sales & Service Tax




BSc, LLB(Hons), MSc, MRICS, FCIArb, FMIArb, FSIArb, FMSAdj
Rodney is the Chief Executive of the Charlton Martin Group, having previously been employed as Group Regional Director and Senior Vice President of two major contracts consultancy groups in the Asia Pacific Region. Of his 34 years of experience, 23 have been at senior level in this region. Additionally, Rodney has worked for many clients in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and India. Rodney holds dual qualifications in quantity surveying and law and as a chartered quantity surveyor is a specialist in construction contract consultancy providing professional and technical advice to clients relating to contract documentation, contractual claims, dispute avoidance and resolution. He is an accredited mediator, panel arbitrator and panel adjudicator with the Asian International Arbitration Centre and is an experienced speaker within the region. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators as well as both the Malaysian and Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. Rodney has been appointed as Expert Witness on matters relating to quantum and delay and has acted as lay advocate in arbitration proceedings. Rodney has also been appointed as an arbitrator, mediator, adjudicator and dispute adjudication board member in Malaysia. He has lived and worked in Kuala Lumpur since 1997.


BSc(Hons), LLB(Hons), Dip. Int. Arb., FCIArb, FMSAdj, MRISM, Reg.QS
JOHN WONG John is a Director of Charlton Martin Consultants Sdn Bhd. John holds dual qualifications in quantity surveying and law, is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, a Fellow of the Malaysian Society of Adjudicator, a Certified Adjudicator under Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), a Registered Quantity Surveyor with the Board of Quantity Surveyors Malaysia and a Member of The Royal Institution of Surveyors Malaysia. John is a committee member of the Society of Construction Law Malaysia. John is a Panel Arbitrator and Adjudicator with AIAC. In year 1996, John begun his career in quantity surveying and since year 1999, John has specialised in construction contract claims and dispute resolution. In his past employment from 1999-2007, John was trained by a seasoned construction lawyer in arbitration counsel work and interpreting contracts pursuant to canons of construction. John's all-round experience as a Quantity Surveyor, Claims Specialist, and Arbitration Counsel give him an added perspective in excelling in his present roles as an Adjudicator, Arbitrator and Expert Witness in CIPAA/arbitration/court proceedings. Since year 2007, John has been an articulate speaker at seminars on construction claims in Malaysia. Apart from Malaysia, John’s project experience covers Asia, Mexico, Algeria and the Middle East.


BSc(Hons), PGDip, MSc, MBA, MSc, MRICS, MCIOB, MRISM, ICEACA, Reg.QS, Chartered Construction Manager
Shawn is a well-qualified multi-disciplinary professional with over 35 years of experience in construction, engineering, energy and infrastructure projects. His experience on large scale projects covers many sectors, executed under various contractual arrangements, inter alia, Traditional Contracts, Management Contracting, Construction Management, Design & Build, Turnkey, BOT, PFI and PPP. Shawn specialises in the provision of dispute related services, having previously been employed in two major contract consultancy groups and as senior commercial manager of a large multi-national company where he headed the commercial and risk division, managing and directing operation resources, oversees contract administration, arbitration, adjudication, and other legal matters. The combination of his technical, quantity surveying, project management, IT, law and business administration skills enables him to assist clients in a broad range of issues and maximising the prospects of success in a cost-effective manner. He counsels employers, contractors and subcontractors in commercial, retail, office, residential, civil engineering, industrial park, power plants and airport projects and was recognised for his ability to effectively resolve complex and difficult commercial and contractual matters.


CHARLTON MARTIN – Construction Contracts Consultants
Michael Charlton and Rodney Martin have worked together successfully for more than two decades, the majority of which have been as Chairman and CEO of the Charlton Martin Group. The Charlton Martin Group was established in 2007 with practices in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. They bring in excess of fifty years' experience of working in Asia Pacific. The Charlton Martin Group provides services to the construction industry on contractual matters and contract administration; claims preparation; training and seminars; mediation; adjudication and arbitration services; litigation support and expert witness services.