NORTON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD GLOMAC KRISTAL SDN BHD

NORTON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD GLOMAC KRISTAL SDN BHD

The Court dismissed the setting‑aside application because the plaintiff failed to prove any ground under s37: the Arbitrator considered and addressed the contested issues, made findings of fact and law within her mandate, and no breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with public policy was shown; consequently, the Award met formal requirements under s38 and was ordered registered and enforced as a High Court judgment.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-32-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Glomac Kristal Sdn Bhd; Defendant/applicant: Norton Construction Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 November 2025
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-32-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons — Setting Aside (s37) and Enforcement/registration (s38) of Arbitral Award Under Arbitration Act 2005 / Judgment (decision on OS30 and Os32)
Outcome
Setting aside application dismissed; Enforcement application allowed and Award registered as High Court judgment
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Enforcement and Registration of Arbitral Award, Extension of Time (eot) Disputes, Liquidated Damages, Natural Justice in Arbitration, Expert Evidence Weight and Independence, Unjust Enrichment, Statutory Tax Recovery (gst)
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Tax (gst) Civil Procedure Setting Aside Arbitral Award Enforcement and Registration of Arbitral Award Extension of Time (eot) Disputes +5 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glomac Kristal Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff/respondent

Norton Construction Sdn Bhd

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons — Setting Aside (s37) and Enforcement/registration (s38) of Arbitral Award Under Arbitration Act 2005 / Judgment (decision on OS30 and Os32)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether award ordering GST reimbursement (RM2,108,945.43) amounted to unjust enrichment and was legally erroneous
  2. 2 Whether arbitrator failed to consider direct payments to nominated sub-contractors and entitlement to set-off (RM880,064.19)
  3. 3 Validity of Extension of Time (EOT) Nos.2,3,4 and notice requirements under Clause 23.1 and SA Clause 8

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the setting‑aside application because the plaintiff failed to prove any ground under s37: the Arbitrator considered and addressed the contested issues, made findings of fact and law within her mandate, and no breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with public policy was shown; consequently, the Award met formal requirements under s38 and was ordered registered and enforced as a High Court judgment.

Court Disposition

Setting aside application dismissed; Enforcement application allowed and Award registered as High Court judgment

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs RM20,000.00 subject to allocatur fees
  • Enforcement Application allowed; Award registered as judgment of the High Court pursuant to Section 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005; costs RM10,000.00 subject to allocatur fees