SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. JO ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. JO ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.

The court held the dispute over SiFUS certification fees was not subject to the LoAs' arbitration clause because the statutory certification requirement and the BAM Circular prescribing fees post-dated the LoAs and thus the certification fees were separate ad hoc obligations outside the scope of the arbitration agreement; therefore no stay was ordered under s10 AA 2005 and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
WA-12AC-7-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Sinerjuta Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent/plaintiff: Jo Architects Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Case Number
WA-12AC-7-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (application for Stay Under Arbitration Act) / High Court Re Hearing of Sessions Court Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court upheld Sessions Court's refusal to stay proceedings
Legal Topics
Stay Pending Arbitration, Scope and Interpretation of Arbitration Clause, Professional Fees for Statutory Certification (si Fus), Application of Strata Management Act 2013, Effect of Professional Circulars
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure Construction Law Statutory Interpretation Stay Pending Arbitration Scope and Interpretation of Arbitration Clause Professional Fees for Statutory Certification (si Fus) +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinerjuta Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant/defendant

Jo Architects Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (application for Stay Under Arbitration Act) / High Court Re Hearing of Sessions Court Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the LoAs contain a valid and operative agreement to arbitrate disputes concerning SiFUS certification fees
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration clause is null, void, inoperative or subject to unfulfilled conditions
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim for certification fees falls within 'arising under' or 'in connection with' the LoAs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the dispute over SiFUS certification fees was not subject to the LoAs' arbitration clause because the statutory certification requirement and the BAM Circular prescribing fees post-dated the LoAs and thus the certification fees were separate ad hoc obligations outside the scope of the arbitration agreement; therefore no stay was ordered under s10 AA 2005 and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court upheld Sessions Court's refusal to stay proceedings

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs in favour of the respondent of MYR 2500.00 to be paid by the appellant (subject to allocatur)