ORIENTAL HOUSETOP SDN BHD MAGNA HAVEN SDN BHD

ORIENTAL HOUSETOP SDN BHD MAGNA HAVEN SDN BHD

OS 1 dismissed and OS 2 allowed because the excess-of-jurisdiction challenge was not intituled and therefore not entertained; the alleged breaches of natural justice did not amount to a material prejudice that would justify setting aside the award; the Arbitrator afforded a fair hearing and his valuation and findings were reasonable and immaterial to the outcome; therefore the award is valid and enforceable under s.38 AA.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-06-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in OS 1; Defendant in OS 2: Oriental Housetop Sdn Bhd; Defendant in OS 1; Plaintiff in OS 2: Magna Haven Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 July 2021
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-06-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Arbitration Act 2005 to Set Aside and Enforce Arbitral Award / Final Determination on Cross Applications (judgment)
Outcome
OS 1 dismissed; OS 2 allowed; award recognised and enforced
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Public Policy, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Arbitral Award Enforcement of Arbitral Award Public Policy Natural Justice Jurisdiction of Arbitrator +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oriental Housetop Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in OS 1; Defendant in OS 2

Magna Haven Sdn Bhd

Defendant in OS 1; Plaintiff in OS 2

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Arbitration Act 2005 to Set Aside and Enforce Arbitral Award / Final Determination on Cross Applications (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside for excess of jurisdiction under s.37(1)(a)(v) Arbitration Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether the award is in conflict with public policy by reason of breach of natural justice under s.37(1)(b)(ii) and s.37(2)(b) Arbitration Act 2005
  3. 3 Whether the award should be recognised and enforced under s.38 Arbitration Act 2005

Ratio Decidendi

OS 1 dismissed and OS 2 allowed because the excess-of-jurisdiction challenge was not intituled and therefore not entertained; the alleged breaches of natural justice did not amount to a material prejudice that would justify setting aside the award; the Arbitrator afforded a fair hearing and his valuation and findings were reasonable and immaterial to the outcome; therefore the award is valid and enforceable under s.38 AA.

Court Disposition

OS 1 dismissed; OS 2 allowed; award recognised and enforced

Orders

  • OS 1 dismissed with costs of MYR 4,000.00 subject to usual allocator
  • OS 2 allowed and Award recognised and enforced with costs of MYR 4,000.00 subject to usual allocator