MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

The High Court held the adjudicator validly exercised jurisdiction despite prior commencement of arbitration under s.37 CIPAA; the Payment Claim (read with the covering letter) satisfied s.5(2) CIPAA; the complained defects were merits issues not falling within the narrow s.15 grounds for setting aside; accordingly OS160 to set aside was dismissed with costs, OS162 to enforce the Adjudication Decision was granted (Order in Terms) and OS161 to stay enforcement was dismissed.

Citation
WA-24C-162-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (in OS160 & Os161); Defendant (in Os162): Tenaga Nasional Berhad; Defendant (in OS160 & Os161); Plaintiff (in Os162): Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-162-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
CIPAA Originating Summons (enforcement and Setting Aside) / Judgment (high Court Decision)
Outcome
OS160 dismissed with costs; OS162 enforcement granted (Order in Terms); OS161 stay dismissed
Legal Topics
CIPAA 2012, Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions, Stay of Enforcement, Jurisdictional Challenge, Natural Justice, Set Off
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Statutory Adjudication Arbitration Civil Procedure CIPAA 2012 Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions Stay of Enforcement Jurisdictional Challenge +2 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Plaintiff (in OS160 & Os161); Defendant (in Os162)

Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad

Defendant (in OS160 & Os161); Plaintiff (in Os162)

Procedural Posture

CIPAA Originating Summons (enforcement and Setting Aside) / Judgment (high Court Decision)

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the adjudicator validly exercised jurisdiction despite prior commencement of arbitration under s.37 CIPAA; the Payment Claim (read with the covering letter) satisfied s.5(2) CIPAA; the complained defects were merits issues not falling within the narrow s.15 grounds for setting aside; accordingly OS160 to set aside was dismissed with costs, OS162 to enforce the Adjudication Decision was granted (Order in Terms) and OS161 to stay enforcement was dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Dismiss OS160 (Originating Summons No. WA-24C-160-08/2022) with costs
  • Grant Order in Terms for prayers in enclosure 1 of OS162 (Originating Summons No. WA-24C-162-08/2022) to enforce the Adjudication Decision under s.28 CIPAA