DYNAMIC NAVIGATION SDN BHD CARIMIN ENGINEERING SERVICES SDN. BHD.

DYNAMIC NAVIGATION SDN BHD CARIMIN ENGINEERING SERVICES SDN. BHD.

Extension of time was refused because the application was not promptly filed, the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, solicitor’s mistake and pending clarification did not justify extension, the appellant had knowledge of the delay, the subject matter of the appeal was either not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-24-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Dynamic Navigation Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Carmin Engineering Services Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 June 2025
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-24-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Decision on Extension of Time (dismissed); Appeal to Court of Appeal Filed
Outcome
Enclosure 3 dismissed; appeal irregular and struck out
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Proceedings Under S10 AA, Mareva Injunction, Assessment of Damages, Arbitrability, Compliance With Rules of Court, Costs
Arbitration Civil Procedure Injunctions Damages Appeals Extension of Time Stay of Proceedings Under S10 AA Mareva Injunction +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dynamic Navigation Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Carmin Engineering Services Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Decision on Extension of Time (dismissed); Appeal to Court of Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to file notice of appeal should be granted under Order 3 Rule 5 RoC
  2. 2 Whether assessment of damages (Enclosure 60) is subject to arbitration clause and thus stayed under s10 Arbitration Act 2005
  3. 3 Whether solicitor’s mistake or pending clarification justifies late filing

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the application was not promptly filed, the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, solicitor’s mistake and pending clarification did not justify extension, the appellant had knowledge of the delay, the subject matter of the appeal was either not within arbitration or had become academic due to ongoing arbitration, and the respondent would be prejudiced; accordingly Enclosure 3 was dismissed and the appeal struck out with costs of RM3,000 ordered.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 3 dismissed; appeal irregular and struck out

Orders

  • Enclosure 3 dismissed
  • Appeal struck out as irregular