TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

The Court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the Payment Claim despite prior arbitration (relying on s37 CIPAA and federal authority), the Payment Claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA when read with accompanying correspondence, the adjudicator did not deny natural justice in exercising procedural powers under s25(a), and errors on merits do not constitute grounds to set aside under s15; accordingly OS170 (setting aside) was dismissed, OS171 (stay) dismissed, and enforcement under OS172 granted pursuant to s28 CIPAA.

Citation
WA-24C-171-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (in OS170 & Os171); Defendant (in Os172): Tenaga Nasional Berhad; Defendant (in OS170 & Os171); Plaintiff (in Os172): Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-171-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (setting Aside, Stay, Enforcement of CIPAA Adjudication Decision) / Judgment/grounds of Judgment Delivered (decision on Os170, Os171, Os172)
Outcome
OS170 (setting aside) dismissed with costs; OS171 (stay) dismissed with costs; OS172 (enforcement) allowed (Order in Terms) with costs.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Enforcement, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Stay of Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice in Adjudication, Payment Claim Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Arbitration Civil Procedure CIPAA Enforcement Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Stay of Adjudication Jurisdiction of Adjudicator +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Plaintiff (in OS170 & Os171); Defendant (in Os172)

Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad

Defendant (in OS170 & Os171); Plaintiff (in Os172)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (setting Aside, Stay, Enforcement of CIPAA Adjudication Decision) / Judgment/grounds of Judgment Delivered (decision on Os170, Os171, Os172)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because arbitration had commenced prior to adjudication
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA by deciding matters beyond payment claims
  3. 3 Whether there was a denial of natural justice under s15(b) CIPAA by refusing a rejoinder or failing to allow full airing of issues

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the Payment Claim despite prior arbitration (relying on s37 CIPAA and federal authority), the Payment Claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA when read with accompanying correspondence, the adjudicator did not deny natural justice in exercising procedural powers under s25(a), and errors on merits do not constitute grounds to set aside under s15; accordingly OS170 (setting aside) was dismissed, OS171 (stay) dismissed, and enforcement under OS172 granted pursuant to s28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

OS170 (setting aside) dismissed with costs; OS171 (stay) dismissed with costs; OS172 (enforcement) allowed (Order in Terms) with costs.

Orders

  • Dismiss enclosure 1 of OS 170 with costs
  • Allow prayers (1), (2) and (3) in enclosure 1 of OS 172 with costs (Order in Terms for enforcement)