GEOPANCAR SDN BHD M101 ENTITY SDN BHD

GEOPANCAR SDN BHD M101 ENTITY SDN BHD

The Court held M101 failed to prove the Award should be set aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iv) and 37(2)(b)(ii) read with 37(1)(b)(ii): the Arbitrator did not decide issues beyond the scope of the submission but necessarily examined whether the New Instructions contained new requirements and thus whether they required formal variation orders; no breach of natural justice or public policy was established; accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and the Award was recognised and enforced by the High Court.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-20-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/defendant: M101 Entity Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff: Geopancar Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 February 2021
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-20-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under Arbitration Act 2005: Setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Award Arising From Construction Contract Dispute / High Court Grounds of Judgment Following Hearing of Setting Aside and Enforcement Applications
Outcome
Setting aside application dismissed; Enforcement application allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Natural Justice, Variation Orders, Contract Interpretation, Public Policy
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Arbitral Award Enforcement of Arbitral Award Natural Justice Variation Orders +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M101 Entity Sdn Bhd

Applicant/defendant

Geopancar Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under Arbitration Act 2005: Setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Award Arising From Construction Contract Dispute / High Court Grounds of Judgment Following Hearing of Setting Aside and Enforcement Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award dealt with disputes not contemplated by the submission to arbitration (new difference/variation)
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by deciding that the New Instructions amounted to a variation
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator breached rules of natural justice by deciding factual issues (variation, safety exception) without permitting parties to lead expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held M101 failed to prove the Award should be set aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iv) and 37(2)(b)(ii) read with 37(1)(b)(ii): the Arbitrator did not decide issues beyond the scope of the submission but necessarily examined whether the New Instructions contained new requirements and thus whether they required formal variation orders; no breach of natural justice or public policy was established; accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and the Award was recognised and enforced by the High Court.

Court Disposition

Setting aside application dismissed; Enforcement application allowed

Orders

  • Setting aside application by M101 dismissed with costs of RM15000.00 subject to allocatur fees
  • Enforcement application by GSB allowed with costs of RM10000.00 subject to allocatur fees