ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD

ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD

Section 34(1) of CIPAA 2012, read in its plain and ordinary meaning and against the presumption of constitutionality, bars actions or suits including applications for judicial review against an adjudicator or the KLRCA in respect of acts or omissions done in good faith in performance of functions under the Act; therefore the appellant is protected by statutory immunity subject to the good faith qualification.

Citation
02(i)-66-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Asian International Arbitration Centre; First Respondent: One Amerin Residence Sdn Bhd; Second Respondent: Choon Hon Leng; Third Respondent: Ragawang Corporation Sdn Bhd; Fourth Respondent: Menteri Kerja Raya; Fifth Respondent: Menteri dalam Jabatan Perdana Menteri (Undang-Undang)
Court
i
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Case Number
02(i)-66-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Federal Court Supporting Judgment on Appeal Concerning Jurisdiction and Immunity Under Statute
Outcome
Appellant's claim to statutory immunity under s.34(1) CIPAA 2012 upheld; judicial review against the appellant in respect of acts/omissions done in good faith is barred
Legal Topics
Statutory Immunity, Judicial Review Ouster, Statutory Interpretation, Good Faith Requirement, CIPAA S.34(1)
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Arbitration Law Statutory Immunity Judicial Review Ouster Statutory Interpretation Good Faith Requirement +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asian International Arbitration Centre

Appellant

One Amerin Residence Sdn Bhd

First Respondent

Choon Hon Leng

Second Respondent

Ragawang Corporation Sdn Bhd

Third Respondent

Menteri Kerja Raya

Fourth Respondent

Menteri dalam Jabatan Perdana Menteri (Undang-Undang)

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Federal Court Supporting Judgment on Appeal Concerning Jurisdiction and Immunity Under Statute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.34(1) of CIPAA 2012 bars suits including judicial review against the adjudicator/KLRCA
  2. 2 Whether s.34(1) is constitutional
  3. 3 Whether immunity under s.34(1) is absolute or conditional on acting in good faith

Ratio Decidendi

Section 34(1) of CIPAA 2012, read in its plain and ordinary meaning and against the presumption of constitutionality, bars actions or suits including applications for judicial review against an adjudicator or the KLRCA in respect of acts or omissions done in good faith in performance of functions under the Act; therefore the appellant is protected by statutory immunity subject to the good faith qualification.

Court Disposition

Appellant's claim to statutory immunity under s.34(1) CIPAA 2012 upheld; judicial review against the appellant in respect of acts/omissions done in good faith is barred

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed insofar as the appellant may rely on s.34(1) CIPAA 2012 to bar actions or suits including judicial review against it for acts or omissions done in good faith under the Act