Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd Crest Builder Sdn Bhd

Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd Crest Builder Sdn Bhd

The High Court dismissed the setting aside application and allowed enforcement because the HCSA Fortuna injunction was interlocutory and did not give rise to res judicata or issue estoppel that would invalidate the arbitrator's determinations; the arbitrator provided reasoned exercise of discretion in refusing late amendments and recall based on delay and prejudice within the PAM Rules and the rules on natural justice were not breached; Crest complied with s 38 AA 2005 and no statutory ground under s 37 or refusal ground under s 39 justified setting aside or refusing enforcement of the Award.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-40-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant / Defendant: Crest Builder Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Plaintiff: Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 February 2024
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-40-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Enforcement and Setting Aside Applications (originating Summons) / High Court Determination on Enforcement and Setting Aside Applications (judgment); Appeal Filed by Respondent
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Public Policy, Natural Justice, Res Judicata / Issue Estoppel, Fortuna Injunction, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Construction Law Company Law Injunctions Public Policy Setting Aside Arbitral Award +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crest Builder Sdn Bhd

Applicant / Defendant

Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Enforcement and Setting Aside Applications (originating Summons) / High Court Determination on Enforcement and Setting Aside Applications (judgment); Appeal Filed by Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award is in conflict with public policy because the arbitrator failed to give effect to res judicata/issue estoppel arising from the Shah Alam High Court Fortuna injunction
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of the rules of natural justice by the arbitrator in refusing Saujana's application to amend its Points of Claim and to recall witness CW9
  3. 3 Whether the award should be set aside under s 37 Arbitration Act 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed the setting aside application and allowed enforcement because the HCSA Fortuna injunction was interlocutory and did not give rise to res judicata or issue estoppel that would invalidate the arbitrator's determinations; the arbitrator provided reasoned exercise of discretion in refusing late amendments and recall based on delay and prejudice within the PAM Rules and the rules on natural justice were not breached; Crest complied with s 38 AA 2005 and no statutory ground under s 37 or refusal ground under s 39 justified setting aside or refusing enforcement of the Award.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; Enforcement Application allowed

Orders

  • Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral Final Award dated 12.5.2023 by entry as a judgment in terms of the Award
  • Costs to be paid by Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd to Crest Builder Sdn Bhd: RM15,000 for the Setting Aside Application and RM10,000 for the Enforcement Application, both subject to allocator