MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

The Court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction to proceed because s37 CIPAA permits adjudication to be commenced or continued notwithstanding arbitration; the Payment Claim complied with s5(2) when read with annexed covering documents; the adjudicator lawfully exercised procedural discretions (including limiting submissions) under s25 and s27(3); there was no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction amounting to grounds under s15; merits complaints on quantum and compliance are not grounds to set aside. Therefore OS 170 (setting aside) was dismissed, OS 171 (stay) was dismissed, and enforcement in OS 172 was granted (order in terms) with costs.

Citation
WA-24C-172-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os170 & Os171) / Defendant (os172): Tenaga Nasional Berhad; Defendant (os170 & Os171) / Plaintiff (os172): Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-172-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
OS 170 dismissed with costs; OS 171 dismissed with costs; OS 172 enforcement granted (Order in Terms) with costs
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under S37 CIPAA, Setting Aside Adjudication S15 CIPAA, Enforcement S28 CIPAA, Stay of Adjudication S16 CIPAA, Natural Justice, Excess of Jurisdiction, Payment Claim Compliance S5(2), Waiver, Quantum
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication (cipaa) Arbitration Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under S37 CIPAA Setting Aside Adjudication S15 CIPAA Enforcement S28 CIPAA Stay of Adjudication S16 CIPAA +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Plaintiff (os170 & Os171) / Defendant (os172)

Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad

Defendant (os170 & Os171) / Plaintiff (os172)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because arbitration had commenced before adjudication (s37 CIPAA)
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA by deciding matters outside payment claim / contractual requirements
  3. 3 Whether there was denial of natural justice under s15(b) CIPAA by refusing rejoinder and deciding new issues

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction to proceed because s37 CIPAA permits adjudication to be commenced or continued notwithstanding arbitration; the Payment Claim complied with s5(2) when read with annexed covering documents; the adjudicator lawfully exercised procedural discretions (including limiting submissions) under s25 and s27(3); there was no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction amounting to grounds under s15; merits complaints on quantum and compliance are not grounds to set aside. Therefore OS 170 (setting aside) was dismissed, OS 171 (stay) was dismissed, and enforcement in OS 172 was granted (order in terms) with costs.

Court Disposition

OS 170 dismissed with costs; OS 171 dismissed with costs; OS 172 enforcement granted (Order in Terms) with costs

Orders

  • Dismiss enclosure 1 of OS 170 with costs
  • Dismiss OS 171 with costs