TRT ENGINEERING (M) SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 684176-H) HANSOL KNM GREENTECH SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 1135364-X)

TRT ENGINEERING (M) SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 684176-H) HANSOL KNM GREENTECH SDN. BHD. ( / ) (Co. No.: 1135364-X)

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the adjudicator's calculations or awards except on the limited statutory grounds in s 15 CIPAA; the adjudicator had statutory power to award financing costs and to fix costs under s 18(1) CIPAA, the failure to correct alleged computational errors was within the adjudicator's discretion under s 12(7) and did not amount to a decisive breach of natural justice or lack of impartiality, remittance for re-adjudication was not permitted by CIPAA and would defeat its purpose, and the court therefore allowed enforcement under s 28 CIPAA but varied the commencement date for post-AD interest to 3.1.2019.

Citation
24C(ARB)-2-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: TRT Engineering (M) Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant: Hansol KNM Greentech Sdn. Bhd.
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 November 2019
Case Number
24C(ARB)-2-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision) / Judgment (applications Heard Together)
Outcome
Hansol's originating summons and enclosure 3 dismissed; TRT's originating summons allowed subject to variation of interest commencement date
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Natural Justice, Adjudicator Jurisdiction, Costs of Adjudication, Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Adjudication Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Natural Justice Adjudicator Jurisdiction +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 8 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TRT Engineering (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

Hansol KNM Greentech Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision) / Judgment (applications Heard Together)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent could file setting aside OS after applicant filed enforcement OS in light of O 69A r 3(4) Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had power under s 25(o) CIPAA to award financing costs of RM10,000
  3. 3 Whether adjudicator had discretion under s 18(1) CIPAA to award entire fees, expenses and taxes to successful party

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the adjudicator's calculations or awards except on the limited statutory grounds in s 15 CIPAA; the adjudicator had statutory power to award financing costs and to fix costs under s 18(1) CIPAA, the failure to correct alleged computational errors was within the adjudicator's discretion under s 12(7) and did not amount to a decisive breach of natural justice or lack of impartiality, remittance for re-adjudication was not permitted by CIPAA and would defeat its purpose, and the court therefore allowed enforcement under s 28 CIPAA but varied the commencement date for post-AD interest to 3.1.2019.

Court Disposition

Hansol's originating summons and enclosure 3 dismissed; TRT's originating summons allowed subject to variation of interest commencement date

Orders

  • Hansol KNM Greentech Sdn. Bhd.'s Originating Summons and court enclosure 3 dismissed
  • TRT Engineering (M) Sdn. Bhd.'s Originating Summons allowed and adjudication decision enforced as judgment subject to Post-AD interest to run from 3.1.2019