Client Feedback
What contractors, developers and consultants say about working with Waja Law
Feedback from clients who have engaged Waja Law for contract review, CIPAA adjudication and construction disputes in Malaysia.
Back to HomeClient Reviews
Testimonials from construction industry clients
"We brought in Waja Law to review a CIDB sub-contract before we signed. The commentary they produced was useful — it identified an LAD clause that had no genuine cap on exposure, which we hadn't caught ourselves. The output was clear enough for our commercial director to use directly in the negotiation."
Ahmad Muzakkir
Contracts Manager — Subang Jaya
March 2025
"We received a CIPAA payment claim and had about ten working days to respond. Waja Law picked up the file quickly, identified two jurisdictional issues worth raising, and produced the Payment Response and Adjudication Response within the statutory windows. The process was tighter than I expected — more structured than dealing with a general litigation firm."
Lim Pei Yee
Project Director — Petaling Jaya
February 2025
"I appreciated that they told us at the start which parts of our delay claim were well-supported and which weren't. We ended up refining the claim considerably before filing. It was better advice than being told everything looked fine — we went in with realistic expectations and a cleaner submission."
Rajan Nair
Senior QS — Shah Alam
January 2025
"The fee was fixed and clearly stated before they started the contract review. That was the main reason we chose them — we had a budget for the review and needed to know the cost wouldn't change. The commentary covered exactly what we needed for the negotiation."
Farah Zulaikha
Development Manager — Cyberjaya
March 2025
"We had a CIPAA adjudication decision in our favour and needed advice on enforcing it. Waja Law explained the enforcement process clearly and handled the High Court application. The process was more straightforward than I expected, partly because the decision itself was well-structured — their submission at adjudication stage had made enforcement easier."
Tan Hock Weng
Director — M&E Contractor, Klang
April 2025
"We had a final account dispute that had been stuck for two years. After reviewing the documents, they were straightforward about which items had strong contractual support and which were weaker. We ended up negotiating a settlement after the Adjudication Response was filed — the other side had clearly reassessed their position after reading our submissions."
Siti Norzahra Ibrahim
Operations Head — Civil Contractor, Putrajaya
February 2025
Case Studies
Three construction matters handled in detail
Case Study 01
CIPAA claim for interim payment — retained sum not released
CHALLENGE
A specialist subcontractor had completed their scope on a commercial building in Shah Alam. The main contractor withheld RM 280,000 in certified amounts citing set-off for alleged defects, without serving a proper Payment Response within the statutory period.
APPROACH
Waja Law filed a CIPAA Payment Claim and, when the respondent served a late Payment Response, raised the jurisdictional issue in the Adjudication Claim. Full written submissions on the merits of the set-off were prepared in the alternative.
OUTCOME
The adjudicator upheld the claim on jurisdictional and merits grounds. The full sum was awarded. Enforcement through the High Court was straightforward as the respondent did not contest the decision.
TIMELINE
Referral to decision: 11 weeks
Case Study 02
PAM contract review before execution — data centre fit-out
CHALLENGE
A main contractor was asked to sign a heavily amended PAM Contract 2018 for a RM 12 million data centre fit-out. The employer had introduced amendments removing the standard EOT provisions and capping the contractor's right to payment for variations below a threshold.
APPROACH
Waja Law produced a marked-up commentary covering the amendments most likely to affect the contractor's financial exposure — particularly the LAD provisions, the variation threshold, and the modified dispute escalation clause which attempted to exclude CIPAA.
OUTCOME
The contractor negotiated amendments to the LAD cap, reinstatement of standard EOT notice requirements, and removal of the clause purporting to restrict CIPAA rights (which in any event could not legally override the statute).
TIMELINE
Review delivered: 7 working days
Case Study 03
Arbitration — delay and prolongation claim, infrastructure project
CHALLENGE
A contractor was defending a RM 2.4 million LAD claim by an employer following a 14-month delay on a drainage infrastructure project. The contractor's position was that the delay was caused by late design information and an instruction to vary the specification during construction.
APPROACH
Waja Law engaged a forensic delay analyst to prepare a time impact analysis demonstrating critical path impact. The legal submissions built on the delay analysis and the documentary record of requests for information, showing that the contractor had complied with notice requirements.
OUTCOME
The arbitrator awarded an extension of time of 9 months, reducing the LAD exposure from RM 2.4 million to RM 375,000. The prolongation counterclaim for site overhead costs was partially allowed.
TIMELINE
Hearing to award: 14 months
Practice Statistics
By the numbers
85+
Contracts reviewed
40+
CIPAA proceedings
4.7
Average client rating
MY Bar
Practising certificate
Contact Waja Law
Reach us directly
Phone
+60 3 8312 6587Address
Suite 2-2, Tamarind Square, Persiaran Multimedia, 63000 Cyberjaya
Hours
Mon–Fri 9:00–18:00
Sat 9:00–13:00
Start a conversation
Tell us about your construction matter
Contract review, CIPAA proceedings, or a larger dispute — we review documents before advising, so please send us what you have.
Get in Touch