JO ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 71521-A) SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 1013408-T)

JO ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 71521-A) SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 1013408-T)

The court found the appointment letters' arbitration clause did not encompass the plaintiff's SiFUS certification fee claim because SiFUS certification obligations arose after the appointments and were not within the contractual scope (clause 2). The defendant failed to prove the claim fell within the arbitration clause; therefore s.10 mandatory stay did not apply and the stay application (Lampiran 6) was dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-B52C-43-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
PLAINTIF: JO ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.; DEFENDAN: SINERJUTA SDN. BHD.
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 January 2021
Case Number
WA-B52C-43-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Debt/contract (civil) / Hearing on Defendant's Application to Stay Proceedings Under S.10 Arbitration Act 2005 (lampiran 6)
Outcome
Application to stay proceedings (Lampiran 6) dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Clause Scope, Statutory Certification (si Fus) Fees, Interpretation of Appointment Letters, Court Vs Tribunal Jurisdiction
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Construction Law Strata Law Stay of Proceedings Arbitration Clause Scope Statutory Certification (si Fus) Fees +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JO ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.

PLAINTIF

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD.

DEFENDAN

Procedural Posture

Debt/contract (civil) / Hearing on Defendant's Application to Stay Proceedings Under S.10 Arbitration Act 2005 (lampiran 6)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment letters' arbitration clause covers the plaintiff's claim for SiFUS certification fees
  2. 2 Whether the court must grant a mandatory stay under s.10 Arbitration Act 2005
  3. 3 Whether the SiFUS work fell within the contractual scope at the time of appointment or arose later by statute

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the appointment letters' arbitration clause did not encompass the plaintiff's SiFUS certification fee claim because SiFUS certification obligations arose after the appointments and were not within the contractual scope (clause 2). The defendant failed to prove the claim fell within the arbitration clause; therefore s.10 mandatory stay did not apply and the stay application (Lampiran 6) was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application to stay proceedings (Lampiran 6) dismissed

Orders

  • Lampiran 6 dismissed with costs of RM1000.00 payable by Defendant to Plaintiff
  • Plaintiff to file reply to defence on or before 2-2-2021