TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

The court held that s37(1) CIPAA is permissive and must be construed purposively; adjudication may be initiated even after arbitration or court proceedings commence and does not ipso facto oust adjudicator jurisdiction. The payment claim met s5(2) CIPAA requirements; there was no jurisdictional excess nor breach of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-24C-166-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in O.s. Nos. WA 24 C 165 & WA 24 C 166; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 167: Tenaga Nasional Berhad; Defendant in O.s. Nos. WA 24 C 165 & WA 24 C 166; Plaintiff in 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-166-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) – Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Applications / Judgment Delivered (full Grounds of Judgment)
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 and adjudication decision enforced as High Court judgment
Legal Topics
CIPAA S37 Concurrency, Adjudicator Jurisdiction, Payment Claim Requirements (s5 Cipaa), Natural Justice / S15(b) CIPAA, Stay of Adjudication Decision (s16 Cipaa), Enforcement of Adjudication Decision (s28 Cipaa), Purposive Statutory Interpretation
Construction Law Arbitration Law Administrative Law (natural Justice) Contract Law Statutory Interpretation CIPAA S37 Concurrency Adjudicator Jurisdiction Payment Claim Requirements (s5 Cipaa) +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Plaintiff in O.s. Nos. WA 24 C 165 & WA 24 C 166; Defendant in O.s. No. WA 24 C 167

Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad

Defendant in O.s. Nos. WA 24 C 165 & WA 24 C 166; Plaintiff in O.s. No. WA 24 C 167

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (cipaa) – Setting Aside, Stay and Enforcement Applications / Judgment Delivered (full Grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'referred concurrently' in s37(1) CIPAA precludes commencement of adjudication after arbitration has been commenced
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator lacked jurisdiction due to alleged non‑compliance with s37(1) CIPAA
  3. 3 Whether payment claim complied with s5(2) CIPAA (cause of action, amount, due date, description, statement)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s37(1) CIPAA is permissive and must be construed purposively; adjudication may be initiated even after arbitration or court proceedings commence and does not ipso facto oust adjudicator jurisdiction. The payment claim met s5(2) CIPAA requirements; there was no jurisdictional excess nor breach of natural justice warranting setting aside. No clear and unequivocal errors or injustice justified a stay. Consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforced as a High Court judgment.

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 and adjudication decision enforced as High Court judgment

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs of MYR 12,000.00 (subject to standard allocatur fees)
  • Stay Application dismissed with costs of MYR 5,000.00 (subject to standard allocatur fees)