Proving Breach of Natural Justice in Adjudication Decisions

The aggrieved party may apply to set aside an adjudication decision due to a breach of natural justice, corruption, lack of adjudicator impartiality, or jurisdictional overreach. However, proving such breaches is challenging, as the burden of proof rests on the aggrieved party, and failure to meet this burden results in the enforcement of potentially unjust decisions. This study identifies the evidence required to satisfy this burden under the Malaysia’s statutory adjudication regimes by analyzing 10 Malaysian cases. Findings reveal that breaches of natural justice often involve adjudicators failing to consider defenses, imposing restrictive jurisdictional views, or disregarding submissions. The study evaluates court verdicts to determine whether the evidence presented is material to the breach and which rule of natural justice was violated. Crucially, only material breaches that likely alter adjudication outcomes justify setting aside decisions. These findings provide adjudicators and construction professionals with a clearer understanding of the evidence required to establish breaches of natural justice, improving statutory adjudication efficiency.