ANGSANA TUNAS SDN BHD INSTANT OPTION RESOURCES SDN BHD

ANGSANA TUNAS SDN BHD INSTANT OPTION RESOURCES SDN BHD

IO failed to prove fraud or denial of natural justice and did not show the adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction; the adjudicator lawfully applied the Amended PAM Contract and had power under CIPAA to award interest on costs; no clear and unequivocal error or justice reason existed to warrant a stay; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and enforcement under s28 CIPAA was allowed.

Citation
WA-24C-235-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Instant Option Resources Sdn Bhd; Defendant/applicant: Angsana Tunas Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 August 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-235-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under CIPAA (setting Aside/stay and Enforcement) / Judgment (grounds of Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Setting Aside and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
CIPAA Adjudication, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication, Stay Application, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Interest on Costs, Set Off/back Charges
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Company Law CIPAA Adjudication Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Stay Application +4 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Instant Option Resources Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff/respondent

Angsana Tunas Sdn Bhd

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under CIPAA (setting Aside/stay and Enforcement) / Judgment (grounds of Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether AD was improperly procured by fraud under s15(a) CIPAA
  2. 2 Whether there was denial of natural justice under s15(b) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA by rewriting subcontract terms

Ratio Decidendi

IO failed to prove fraud or denial of natural justice and did not show the adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction; the adjudicator lawfully applied the Amended PAM Contract and had power under CIPAA to award interest on costs; no clear and unequivocal error or justice reason existed to warrant a stay; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and enforcement under s28 CIPAA was allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside and Stay Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Setting Aside and Stay Application dismissed with costs RM10000.00 (subject to allocatur)
  • Enforcement Application allowed; adjudication decision enforced as judgment of the High Court with costs RM5000.00 (subject to allocatur)