FAR EAST KUCHAI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD STRATEGIC CHAMP SDN BHD

FAR EAST KUCHAI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD STRATEGIC CHAMP SDN BHD

The court held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction, took into account the respondent's submissions and evidence, and did not breach natural justice by refusing further submissions; errors alleged amounted to merits challenges not permissible in a s15 challenge; consequently the set-aside application (OS 182) was dismissed and the enforcement application (OS 178) was allowed pursuant to s28 CIPAA.

Citation
WA-24C-182-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (enforcement Applicant): Strategic Champ Sdn Bhd; Respondent (set Aside Applicant): Far East Kuchai Development Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 January 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-182-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA (enforcement and Set Aside Applications) / Judgment After Hearing (originating Summons Heard Together)
Outcome
OS 182 dismissed; OS 178 allowed and adjudication decision enforced.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under S28 CIPAA, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Under S15 CIPAA, Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness, Adjudicator Jurisdiction, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Enforcement of Adjudication Arbitration/adjudication Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Under S28 CIPAA Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Under S15 CIPAA Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness Adjudicator Jurisdiction +1 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Strategic Champ Sdn Bhd

Applicant (enforcement Applicant)

Far East Kuchai Development Sdn Bhd

Respondent (set Aside Applicant)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA (enforcement and Set Aside Applications) / Judgment After Hearing (originating Summons Heard Together)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the dispute
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to appreciate or consider the respondent's defences and documents
  3. 3 Whether refusal to allow further submissions/clarifications breached natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction, took into account the respondent's submissions and evidence, and did not breach natural justice by refusing further submissions; errors alleged amounted to merits challenges not permissible in a s15 challenge; consequently the set-aside application (OS 182) was dismissed and the enforcement application (OS 178) was allowed pursuant to s28 CIPAA.

Court Disposition

OS 182 dismissed; OS 178 allowed and adjudication decision enforced.

Orders

  • OS 182 dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00
  • OS 178 allowed; enforcement granted in terms of prayers (i)(a),(b),(c) and (ii) of the originating summons