PINTARAS GEOTECHNICS SDN BHD MAISON ROUGE SDN BHD

PINTARAS GEOTECHNICS SDN BHD MAISON ROUGE SDN BHD

The Court dismissed MR's application to set aside the Award and allowed enforcement because the Arbitrator properly evaluated evidence, acted within his procedural and substantive powers under the Arbitration Act 2005 (including section 21), did not exceed jurisdiction in granting EOT which was within the scope of submissions, MR failed to prove causal link and quantum for additional damages, and any procedural omission under Order 69 r 8(8) did not cause prejudice to MR.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-24-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (os24) / Defendant (os30): Pintaras Geotechnics Sdn Bhd; Respondent (os24) / Applicant (os30): Maison Rouge Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 August 2024
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-24-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Award (arbitration Act 2005) / Decision on Originating Summonses (os24 Enforcement; OS30 Setting Aside)
Outcome
MR's Originating Summons (OS30) to set aside the Award dismissed; PG's Originating Summons (OS24) to enforce the Award allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Award Under S37 AA 2005, Enforcement of Award Under S38 AA 2005, Admissibility and Weight of Evidence, Extension of Time (eot), Causation for Damages, Procedural Compliance Order 69 R 8(8)
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Construction Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Setting Aside Award Under S37 AA 2005 Enforcement of Award Under S38 AA 2005 Admissibility and Weight of Evidence +3 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pintaras Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Applicant (os24) / Defendant (os30)

Maison Rouge Sdn Bhd

Respondent (os24) / Applicant (os30)

Procedural Posture

Setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Award (arbitration Act 2005) / Decision on Originating Summonses (os24 Enforcement; OS30 Setting Aside)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Award dated 11.05.2023 should be set aside under section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether the Award should be enforced as a judgment of the Court under section 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by awarding EOT not pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed MR's application to set aside the Award and allowed enforcement because the Arbitrator properly evaluated evidence, acted within his procedural and substantive powers under the Arbitration Act 2005 (including section 21), did not exceed jurisdiction in granting EOT which was within the scope of submissions, MR failed to prove causal link and quantum for additional damages, and any procedural omission under Order 69 r 8(8) did not cause prejudice to MR.

Court Disposition

MR's Originating Summons (OS30) to set aside the Award dismissed; PG's Originating Summons (OS24) to enforce the Award allowed

Orders

  • Dismissed enclosure 1 of OS 30 with costs
  • Enclosure 38 OS 30 and Enclosure 45 OS 30 dismissed as academic with no order as to costs