KRIS HEAVY ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD EP ENGINEERING SDN BHD

KRIS HEAVY ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD EP ENGINEERING SDN BHD

The Court found the Reasoned Decision constituted an "award" within s2 AA2005 but the plaintiff failed to prove a breach of natural justice or conflict with Malaysia's public policy under s37(1)(b)(ii)/s37(2)(b)(ii); the arbitrator correctly concluded he was functus officio as to claims other than costs and had no jurisdiction to make an additional award post-Partial Award under the 1952 Act; remittal or court-ordered pre-award interest was unwarranted given the statutory limits on court intervention and the plaintiff's failure to meet the required threshold.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-7-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kris Heavy Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd; Defendant: EP Engineering Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 August 2019
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-7-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons to Set Aside Arbitral Decision Under Arbitration Act 2005 S37 / Judgment (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Plaintiff's Originating Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Pre Award Interest, Natural Justice, Functus Officio, Remission Under S37(6), Court Intervention Limits
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Construction Contract Law Administrative Law Setting Aside Arbitral Award Pre Award Interest Natural Justice Functus Officio +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kris Heavy Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

EP Engineering Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons to Set Aside Arbitral Decision Under Arbitration Act 2005 S37 / Judgment (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Reasoned Decision is an "award" within s2 Arbitration Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether the Reasoned Decision should be set aside under s37(1)(b)(ii) as conflicting with public policy / breach of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the Reasoned Decision should be remitted to the arbitrator under s37(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the Reasoned Decision constituted an "award" within s2 AA2005 but the plaintiff failed to prove a breach of natural justice or conflict with Malaysia's public policy under s37(1)(b)(ii)/s37(2)(b)(ii); the arbitrator correctly concluded he was functus officio as to claims other than costs and had no jurisdiction to make an additional award post-Partial Award under the 1952 Act; remittal or court-ordered pre-award interest was unwarranted given the statutory limits on court intervention and the plaintiff's failure to meet the required threshold.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Originating Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs to Defendant of RM10000.00, subject to allocator