MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Read purposively, s37(1) CIPAA does not require strict simultaneous initiation of adjudication and arbitration or court proceedings; adjudication may be initiated while arbitration is pending, and an adjudicator retains jurisdiction where a valid payment claim satisfying s5(2) CIPAA is served. The adjudicator did not act beyond jurisdiction nor breach natural justice in this case; therefore the Setting Aside and Stay applications fail and the Enforcement application succeeds.

Citation
WA-24C-167-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (o.s. Nos. WA 24 C 165 & WA 24 C 166); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 167): Tenaga Nasional Berhad; Defendant (o.s. Nos. WA 24 C 165 & WA 24 C 166); Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 167): Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-167-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Concerning Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement of an Adjudication Decision / Post Adjudication: Applications to Set Aside and Stay the Adjudication Decision and Application to Enforce; Full Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-165) dismissed; Stay Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-166) dismissed; Enforcement Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-167) allowed.
Legal Topics
CIPAA S37 Concurrency, Adjudicator Jurisdiction, Payment Claim Requirements S5(2) CIPAA, Setting Aside Adjudication Decisions S15 CIPAA, Stay of Adjudication Decisions S16 CIPAA, Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions S28 CIPAA, Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Contract Law CIPAA S37 Concurrency Adjudicator Jurisdiction Payment Claim Requirements S5(2) CIPAA +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Plaintiff (o.s. Nos. WA 24 C 165 & WA 24 C 166); Defendant (o.s. No. WA 24 C 167)

Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad

Defendant (o.s. Nos. WA 24 C 165 & WA 24 C 166); Plaintiff (o.s. No. WA 24 C 167)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) Concerning Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement of an Adjudication Decision / Post Adjudication: Applications to Set Aside and Stay the Adjudication Decision and Application to Enforce; Full Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'referred concurrently' in s37(1) CIPAA requires strict simultaneous commencement of adjudication and arbitration/court proceedings
  2. 2 Whether adjudication commenced after arbitration deprives adjudicator of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether Payment Claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA such that adjudicator had jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Read purposively, s37(1) CIPAA does not require strict simultaneous initiation of adjudication and arbitration or court proceedings; adjudication may be initiated while arbitration is pending, and an adjudicator retains jurisdiction where a valid payment claim satisfying s5(2) CIPAA is served. The adjudicator did not act beyond jurisdiction nor breach natural justice in this case; therefore the Setting Aside and Stay applications fail and the Enforcement application succeeds.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-165) dismissed; Stay Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-166) dismissed; Enforcement Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-167) allowed.

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-165) dismissed with costs RM12000.00
  • Stay Application (O.S. No. WA-24C-166) dismissed with costs RM5000.00