TOSHIBA ELEVATOR (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD ENG HAN ENGINEERING SDN BHD

TOSHIBA ELEVATOR (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD ENG HAN ENGINEERING SDN BHD

The court found no breach of natural justice or public policy: the arbitrator considered matters within the parties' submissions and within her mandate, drawing on permissible expertise; errors of fact or law did not justify setting aside under section 37; accordingly the application to set aside (OS 44) was dismissed and the enforcement/entry of judgment in terms of the Award (OS 51) was granted with costs.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-51-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eng Han Engineering Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Toshiba Elevator (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 June 2023
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-51-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (arbitration Act 2005) Setting Aside and Enforcement Proceedings / Judgment Delivered
Outcome
OS 44 dismissed; OS 51 granted; Award dated 30.8.2022 enforced; costs awarded to Toshiba.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitration Award, Enforcement of Arbitration Award, Natural Justice, Public Policy, Liquidated Damages, Extension of Time
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Arbitration Award Enforcement of Arbitration Award Natural Justice Public Policy +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eng Han Engineering Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Toshiba Elevator (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (arbitration Act 2005) Setting Aside and Enforcement Proceedings / Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Final Arbitration Award dated 30.8.2022 should be set aside under section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 for breaches of natural justice or matters beyond the submission to arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the Award is in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator exceeded mandate by relying on extraneous material or failing to give parties notice of her chain of reasoning

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no breach of natural justice or public policy: the arbitrator considered matters within the parties' submissions and within her mandate, drawing on permissible expertise; errors of fact or law did not justify setting aside under section 37; accordingly the application to set aside (OS 44) was dismissed and the enforcement/entry of judgment in terms of the Award (OS 51) was granted with costs.

Court Disposition

OS 44 dismissed; OS 51 granted; Award dated 30.8.2022 enforced; costs awarded to Toshiba.

Orders

  • Dismiss OS 44 with costs
  • Grant Order in Terms for prayers 1 and 2(a) to (e) of OS 51