Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Excess of jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2025

GLOMAC KRISTAL SDN BHD NORTON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove any of the narrow statutory grounds in s37: the arbitrator considered the parties' submissions and evidence, made fact-based credibility determinations (including that plaintiff waived strict notice requirements and that plaintiff's expert lacked independence), and resolved contract interpretation and causation questions within her jurisdiction; therefore the setting aside application was dismissed and the Award registered and enforced under s38 as formal requirements were met.
16 Dec 2024

DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR SRI TINGGI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court set aside the arbitral award because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian legal principles (including stare decisis), misapplied the concept of public policy, introduced novel legal reasoning without affording the parties an opportunity to address it (breach of natural justice under s20 AA 2005), and thereby exceeded the scope of the submission to arbitration; these defects collectively met the statutory grounds in ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) AA 2005 for setting aside the award.
16 Dec 2024

DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR SRI TINGGI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court set aside the arbitral award because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian law and the doctrine of stare decisis, misapplied the concept of public policy, introduced novel legal conclusions without giving the parties an opportunity to address them (breach of natural justice under s20 and s37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005), and decided issues outside the scope of the submission to arbitration (excess of jurisdiction), thereby conflicting with the public policy of Malaysia under s37 and warranting setting aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2…
28 Aug 2024

Era Universe Development Sdn Bhd KEN LIP CONSTRUCTIONS & TRADING SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-24C-19-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24C-19-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the application to set aside because the applicant failed to establish any of the statutory s15 grounds and merely attacked the merits; the enforcement application succeeded because there was an adjudication decision in favour of the applicant and non‑payment, and no valid bar to enforcement under CIPAA.
6 May 2024

CHARTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-160-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-160-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held there was no breach of natural justice and no clear and unequivocal error: the adjudicator addressed and applied his mind to the principal issues (Final Account and DLP), the Final Account was prima facie conclusive under the contract, and alleged omissions were peripheral or would not alter the adjudicator's outcome; accordingly the applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforceable and ordered as a judgment under s28 CIPAA.
11 Dec 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-170-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-170-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction despite arbitration already having been commenced (s37 CIPAA and authority in Martego), the payment claim read with accompanying documents complied with s5(2), the adjudicator acted within powers under s25 in regulating procedure and refusing a rejoinder, and there was no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction warranting setting aside; accordingly the setting aside application was dismissed and enforcement under s28 CIPAA was ordered while the stay application was refused.
11 Dec 2023

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-172-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-172-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the adjudicator had jurisdiction to proceed because s37 CIPAA permits adjudication to be commenced or continued notwithstanding arbitration; the Payment Claim complied with s5(2) when read with annexed covering documents; the adjudicator lawfully exercised procedural discretions (including limiting submissions) under s25 and s27(3); there was no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction amounting to grounds under s15; merits complaints on quantum and compliance are not grounds to set aside. Therefore OS 170 (setting aside) was dismissed, OS 171 (stay) was dismissed, a…
10 Jul 2023

Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd S&S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-23-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-23-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor act in excess of jurisdiction by seeking clarifications and considering the material and clarification letters; those acts were a proper exercise of s25 CIPAA powers and the matters considered fell within the scope of the adjudication (including RIPC 21); although certain declaratory prayers in OS16 were defective for failure to cite the Specific Relief Act s41 in the intitulement, on the substantive merits the setting aside application failed and was dismissed; accordingly the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed and Order 69…
29 Dec 2022

SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED GUMUSUT-KAKAP SEMI-FLOATING PRODUCTION SYSTEM (LABUAN) LIMITED

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-10-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-10-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held GKL failed to prove breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with Malaysian public policy. Tribunal acted within its procedural authority; factual findings and quantification (including sampling/extrapolation, common costs, accommodation vessel, set-off and limitation clause construction) were matters for the Tribunal and are not reviewable. s.30(4A) AA was not applicable to the arbitration. Applications were dismissed and costs awarded to SSPC.
29 Dec 2022

GUMUSUT-KAKAP SEMI-FLOATING PRODUCTION SYSTEM (LABUAN) LIMITED SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-18-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-18-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

GKL failed to prove breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with Malaysian public policy. The Tribunal acted within its procedural discretion, parties had opportunities to present evidence and accepted or could have accepted alternatives (including tribunal expert). Findings of fact and contract construction by the Tribunal are final and not reviewable; s.30(4A) inapplicable to these proceedings; alleged double recovery and misapplication of limitation clause were addressed by the Tribunal. Consequently both the setting-aside and challenge to registration/enforcement app…