A case commentary on GIIB Healthcare Products Sdn Bhd v Glomaxes Latex Glove Manufacturer Sdn Bhd [2026] MLRAU 299
For businesses supplying and installing industrial equipment, an unpaid invoice may raise a question beyond the amount outstanding: does the contract fall within the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA)?
In GIIB Healthcare Products Sdn Bhd v Glomaxes Latex Glove Manufacturer Sdn Bhd, the Court of Appeal upheld an adjudication decision arising from a contract for a glove-dipping production line. The decision illustrates how the way machinery is attached to a building, and the purpose of that attachment, can affect whether the works qualify as construction work.
The dispute
Glomaxes was appointed to carry out a turnkey glove-dipping production line project valued at RM42.78 million. The contract was subsequently assigned to GIIB Healthcare.
A dispute arose over unpaid progress claims. On 7 November 2022, an adjudicator ordered GIIB Healthcare to pay approximately RM14.39 million, together with interest and costs.
GIIB Healthcare applied to set aside the adjudication decision, while Glomaxes applied to enforce it. The High Court dismissed the setting aside application and allowed enforcement. GIIB Healthcare appealed against both orders.
The central question was whether the production line works constituted “construction work” under section 4 of CIPAA. That classification determined whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction over the dispute.
Machinery or a fixture?
GIIB Healthcare argued that the production line was a removable chattel: equipment placed within an existing building, comparable to a vending machine. Glomaxes maintained that it was a fixture.
The Court recorded that the parties agreed the works had to be fixtures to qualify as construction work in this dispute. It approached the issue through two familiar considerations: the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation—in simpler terms, how and why the equipment was attached.
On the photographic evidence, the Court found that the works comprised civil, mechanical and electrical components secured by fasteners, rather than resting in place merely under their own weight. It compared them with mechanical and electrical installations such as air-conditioning and fire protection systems.
The Court also considered the purpose of the attachment. It found that the affixation served the enjoyment of the building as a facility used for glove production.
An existing building does not end the inquiry
The production line was installed after the factory building had been completed. The Court held that this did not prevent the works from qualifying as construction work.
Construction work need not take place at the same time as the construction of the building itself. Work may precede it, such as piling, or follow it, such as refurbishment or renovation.
The Court dismissed both appeals, leaving the refusal to set aside the adjudication decision and the enforcement order in place.
What businesses should take from the decision
The practical lesson is that the description “machinery” or “equipment” does not, by itself, resolve whether CIPAA applies. The actual contractual scope and the nature of the installation deserve close attention.
Suppliers, installers and factory operators should preserve:
- The contract, quotations and specifications identifying the supply, installation and commissioning obligations.
- Installation drawings and photographs showing anchoring, fastening and integration with the building.
- Technical records explaining the purpose of the installation and what dismantling or removal would involve.
- Progress claims, payment records and relevant correspondence.
These are practical evidence-management steps drawn from the issues in the case, rather than a checklist prescribed by the Court.
The limits of the decision
The judgment should not be read as establishing that every installed machine, or every supply-and-install contract, falls within CIPAA.
The fixture requirement was common ground between the parties. The statutory definition does not expressly use the word “fixture”, and the judgment does not fully explore the relationship between that definition and the law of fixtures. Nor does it provide a detailed analysis of how equipment supply and installation obligations should be treated in other mixed contracts.
Those limits matter. This decision is useful support for the treatment of an integrated industrial installation on its particular facts, but each contract still requires assessment against CIPAA’s requirements.
For businesses undertaking factory installations or upgrades, the key question is therefore broader than what the equipment is called: what work was contracted for, how was it installed, and what purpose does its attachment serve?