What clients say about working with Bumi Chambers.

"We engaged Bumi Chambers to handle a CIPAA payment claim that had been stuck for months. The timetable they shared at the start was followed precisely. The adjudication response was comprehensive and the decision went in our favour. What I noticed most was that the counsel who took instructions was also the one who prepared the submission and attended the hearing — there was no handover mid-matter."

"The pre-award contract review was straightforward — we sent the PAM 2018 document set and received a written risk summary within five working days, well within our procurement window. The note flagged three provisions our commercial team had not picked up. One was renegotiated before we signed. The fee was fixed and exactly as quoted."

"As a sub-contractor, using CIPAA was new territory. Bumi Chambers walked us through the process before we committed, which helped us make a better-informed decision. The briefing note on the Act was genuinely useful. The proceeding was handled efficiently. I would have preferred slightly more frequent updates during the submission stage, but the outcome was the right one."

"We used Bumi Chambers for a FIDIC subcontract novation involving four parties on a mixed-use Bukit Bintang project. The drafting was precise and worked around our developer's sign-off schedule. The counsel clearly knew the FIDIC novation mechanics — no time was lost explaining the instrument. Fixed fee made budget approval straightforward."

"The merits note Bumi Chambers produced before we committed to arbitration was the most useful single document in the whole process. It told us what the contemporaneous record supported, where the gaps were, and the realistic range of outcomes. We decided to proceed on the basis of that note, and the outcome was within the range they had described."

"We instructed Bumi Chambers to defend a CIPAA claim we believed was substantially overstated. The payment response and adjudication response were clearly structured — the adjudicator's decision reduced the claimed sum significantly. The counsel's familiarity with the AIAC adjudicator's approach was evident in how the submission was put together. We will be returning for our next contract review."