Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Natural justice / procedural fairness

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2023

SAMAIDEN SDN BHD DITROLIC SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed the setting aside application because Ditrolic failed to prove a denial of procedural fairness; the adjudicator had considered the LAD issue and permissibly left resolution of certain matters to arbitration without usurping jurisdiction. The stay application was dismissed because commencement of arbitration and unsubstantiated allegation of claimant insolvency do not suffice to defeat CIPAA's purpose. Enforcement was allowed because the statutory conditions under s.28 were met and the AD was neither set aside nor stayed.
28 Jul 2023

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-167-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-167-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Read purposively, s37(1) CIPAA does not require strict simultaneous initiation of adjudication and arbitration or court proceedings; adjudication may be initiated while arbitration is pending, and an adjudicator retains jurisdiction where a valid payment claim satisfying s5(2) CIPAA is served. The adjudicator did not act beyond jurisdiction nor breach natural justice in this case; therefore the Setting Aside and Stay applications fail and the Enforcement application succeeds.
14 Mar 2023

1. ) SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) 2. ) XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

W-01(A)-473-09/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-473-09/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court erred: the fatwa issued and gazetted against a corporate appellant fell outside the State's Syariah jurisdiction because corporations cannot 'profess' Islam; the fatwa was ultra vires ss.47/51 as it affected national interest without required reference procedures; it intruded into federal domains by directing federal enforcement regarding publications; it breached natural justice and legitimate expectation by denying the appellant a hearing; respondents failed to justify any permissible limitation under Article 10(2), rendering the fatwa unconstitutional and invalid.
31 Oct 2022

RA SURIA SDN BHD CEDY THIRD CONSTRCTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-107-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-107-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction because the Payment Claim referenced the LoA which incorporated PAM 2006 and the adjudicator legitimately resolved prematurity and payment process issues based on parties' conduct and contemporaneous documents; there was no denial of natural justice because parties were given opportunity to submit and the adjudicator considered evidence and invited further submissions; set‑offs and LDs relied on by RA Suria were not established as contractual entitlements or were unsupported; RA Suria failed to show clear and unequivocal error or insolv…
18 Oct 2022

Granstep Development Sdn Bhd Tan Chong Heng Construction Sdn Bhd

Citation

B-02(C)(A)-1598-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(A)-1598-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed the High Court: adjudication did not commence without appointment of an adjudicator so the first notice/payment claim did not create a subsisting adjudication requiring formal withdrawal under s17; AIAC's ARP registration is not a statutory precondition of jurisdiction; the 2nd payment claim could validly supersede the 1st; there was no breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction by the Adjudicator; therefore the AD stood, enforcement was allowed and applications to set aside and to stay enforcement were dismissed.
5 Jul 2022

ENQUEST PETROLEUM PRODUCTION MALAYSIA LTD PBJV GROUP SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-33-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-33-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no denial of natural justice: the adjudicator reviewed submissions, identified issues, gave intelligible reasons and was entitled to weigh evidence and decline to seek further clarification; therefore OS 2 (setting aside) was dismissed and OS 1 (enforcement) was allowed, enforcing the adjudication decision as a High Court judgment with costs awarded to PBJV.
21 Jun 2022

KWSL BUILDERS SDN BHD MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

BA-24C-13-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-13-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the applications to set aside both adjudication decisions and refused both stay applications because CIPAA permits concurrent adjudication despite prior litigation, s15 provides limited grounds to set aside which were not made out, respondents cannot raise cross-contract counterclaims or seek sums exceeding the claim in adjudication, alleged bad faith and abuse of process were not established, and the narrow View Esteem grounds for stay were not satisfied; the court granted leave to enforce both adjudication decisions under s28 CIPAA.
23 Mar 2022

DAMAI CITY SDN BHD MCC OVERSEAS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-149-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-149-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed the setting aside application because Damai City failed to show a material denial of natural justice or jurisdictional excess; the adjudicator considered the parties' submissions (including Clause 25.4(d)) and his factual and legal findings were not for the Court to re‑decide under s15. The Court refused the stay because no clear and unequivocal error or exceptional injustice was shown and there was insufficient risk of irreparable prejudice. The enforcement application was allowed because statutory requirements were satisfied and no valid grounds to set aside the AD exist…
27 May 2021

ETIKA BEVERAGES SDN. BHD. 1. ) MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH PERHUBUNGAN PERUSAHAAN

Citation

WA-25-131-03-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-131-03-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

R1's decision was quashed because R1 relied on an inadequate, one-sided investigation by R2 without disclosure of the underlying reports or taking essential management evidence and without affording the employer a proper hearing; that procedural failure and absence of demonstrable rational basis rendered the decision irrational/unlawful and vitiated by breach of natural justice, justifying certiorari and relief.