TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

The court held that s.37 CIPAA permits adjudication even where arbitration has been commenced; the Payment Claim (read with its covering letter) satisfied s.5(2) CIPAA; the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction nor deny natural justice in a manner warranting setting aside under s.15; therefore OS160 was dismissed with costs, OS162 (enforcement under s.28 CIPAA) was granted and OS161 (stay) was dismissed.

Citation
WA-24C-160-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os160 & Os161); Defendant (os162): Tenaga Nasional Berhad; Defendant (os160 & Os161); Plaintiff (os162): Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-160-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA (construction Division) / Judgment on Originating Summonses (decision Dated 11 December 2023)
Outcome
OS160 dismissed with costs; OS162 enforcement granted (Order in Terms); OS161 stay dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Enforcement Under S.28 CIPAA, Setting Aside Under S.15 CIPAA, Jurisdictional Challenge, Natural Justice (procedural Fairness), Payment Claim Formalities S.5(2), Stay Pending Arbitration, Set Off Disputes
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Statutory Adjudication Enforcement of Judgments Adjudication Under CIPAA Enforcement Under S.28 CIPAA Setting Aside Under S.15 CIPAA +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Plaintiff (os160 & Os161); Defendant (os162)

Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad

Defendant (os160 & Os161); Plaintiff (os162)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA (construction Division) / Judgment on Originating Summonses (decision Dated 11 December 2023)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate where arbitration has already commenced
  2. 2 Whether the Payment Claim complied with s.5(2) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s.15(d) CIPAA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s.37 CIPAA permits adjudication even where arbitration has been commenced; the Payment Claim (read with its covering letter) satisfied s.5(2) CIPAA; the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction nor deny natural justice in a manner warranting setting aside under s.15; therefore OS160 was dismissed with costs, OS162 (enforcement under s.28 CIPAA) was granted and OS161 (stay) was dismissed.

Court Disposition

OS160 dismissed with costs; OS162 enforcement granted (Order in Terms); OS161 stay dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismiss Originating Summons No. WA-24C-160-08/2022 (OS160) with costs
  • Grant Order in Terms for enforcement in Originating Summons No. WA-24C-162-08/2022 (OS162) (enforcement of Adjudication Decision as judgment under s.28 CIPAA)