TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

The court found MRCB's Payment Claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA and the adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction and s25 powers (including reliance on the parties' own Recommended Valuation); there was no breach of natural justice that justified setting aside the decision; no clear and unequivocal errors were shown to warrant a stay; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforced.

Citation
WA-24C-184-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. Nos. 183 & 184); Defendant (o.s. No. 186): Tenaga Nasional Berhad; Defendant (o.s. Nos. 183 & 184); Plaintiff (o.s. No. 186): Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-184-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Construction Adjudication Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Applications: Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (s15), Stay Pending Arbitration (s16) and Enforcement (s28); Final Judgment on Applications
Outcome
Setting Aside Application and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Natural Justice, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Stay of Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Administrative Law Adjudication Jurisdiction Natural Justice Setting Aside Adjudication Decision +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Plaintiff (o.s. Nos. 183 & 184); Defendant (o.s. No. 186)

Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad

Defendant (o.s. Nos. 183 & 184); Plaintiff (o.s. No. 186)

Procedural Posture

Construction Adjudication Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) / Applications: Setting Aside Adjudication Decision (s15), Stay Pending Arbitration (s16) and Enforcement (s28); Final Judgment on Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction due to prior or concurrent arbitration reference and timing (s37 CIPAA)
  2. 2 Whether the Payment Claim satisfied s5(2) CIPAA such that adjudicator had jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction for failing to comply with mandatory requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The court found MRCB's Payment Claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA and the adjudicator lawfully exercised jurisdiction and s25 powers (including reliance on the parties' own Recommended Valuation); there was no breach of natural justice that justified setting aside the decision; no clear and unequivocal errors were shown to warrant a stay; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforced.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed.

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. 183) dismissed with costs of RM8,000.00 (subject to allocatur)
  • Stay Application (O.S. No. 184) dismissed with costs of RM3,500.00 (subject to allocatur)