Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory adjudication

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2025

ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD

Citation

02(i)-66-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-66-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The AIAC is immune from judicial review in respect of acts and decisions made in its capacity as the statutory adjudication authority because the immunity conferred by the IOPIA (First Schedule) and the immunity in s34(1) CIPAA are functionally constrained to the AIAC's duties (which include adjudication) and extend to judicial review unless the acts are ultra vires or done in bad faith; Court of Appeal's narrower reading was reversed.
13 Feb 2025

ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE 1. ) ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD 2. ) CHOON HON LENG 3. ) RAGAWANG CORPORATION SDN BHD 4. ) MENTERI KERJA RAYA 5. ) MENTERI DALAM JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI (UNDANG-UNDANG)

Citation

01(i)-31-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

01(i)-31-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that AIAC enjoys functional immunity under the IOPIA (First Schedule) which, read with s 11(5) IOPIA and the host country agreements, covers the AIAC's statutory adjudication functions under the CIPAA; the phrase 'suit and other legal process' includes judicial review unless clearly excluded; immunity is subject to functional limits and good faith, so acts ultra vires or done in bad faith fall outside immunity; on the facts AIAC acted within CIPAA and in good faith, thus immune from the judicial review proceedings.
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.
8 Jan 2024

ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD JKP SDN BHD

Citation

02(f)-4-01/2023(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-4-01/2023(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that strict civil pleading rules do not apply to CIPAA adjudication; a payment claim must identify the cause of action but need not particularise every subclause; an adjudicator may consider relevant contract provisions (including subclauses) and exercise inquisitorial powers under s25 so long as the dispute falls within the subject matter referred under ss5 and 6; reliance on clause 36.6 was not fatal, did not breach natural justice nor exceed jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal's setting aside was reversed.
8 Jan 2024

ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD JKP SDN BHD

Citation

02(f)-3-01/2023(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-3-01/2023(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that strict court-style pleadings do not apply to CIPAA adjudication; the payment claim and attached correspondence were sufficient to identify the cause of action (including reference to clause 36.6); an adjudicator is entitled to consider the whole contract and use inquisitorial powers under s25; a breach of natural justice will only set aside an award where the breach is material and likely to have affected the outcome. On the facts clause 36.6 was raised and in any event was not material to the award. The appeals are allowed and the Court of Appeal decision set asid…
15 Jul 2022

CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (M) SDN BHD GOLD MART SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-166-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-166-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the adjudicator had considered and decided the Plaintiff's claims on suspension/EOT and the alleged wider scheme regarding performance bond; there was no clear or virtually inescapable inference that the adjudicator failed to apply his mind. The Plaintiff's complaints amounted to merits challenges not proper in a s.15 CIPAA set‑aside application. The application was dismissed with costs.
31 May 2022

PESAT BUMI SDN BHD CESCON ENGINEERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-84-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-84-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 3(d) of the client's letter is a contractual discretion subject to Wednesbury reasonableness; preliminaries and general conditions are indispensable and must be included in total construction cost unless specifically and reasonably excluded; Plaintiff failed to substantiate several deductions and variation adjustments, therefore certain deductions were disallowed and some reinstated, producing a total construction cost of RM198,202,594.49 leading to a defendant fee entitlement of RM4,096,847.63 (inclusive of 6% GST) and a judgment for the defendant for the unpaid balance RM1,665,897.51…
22 Mar 2021

MACLY EQUITY SDN BHD PRESTIJ MEGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-132-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-132-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the central complaint (res judicata/issue estoppel) did not involve core jurisdiction that justifies pre‑adjudication injunction; the issue can be ventilated before the adjudicator and subsequently challenged by statutory remedies (eg. s.15 setting aside) or in final proceedings; policy considerations require courts to avoid prematurely restraining CIPAA adjudication to preserve its cashflow‑relief objective; no merits determination on res judicata was made.
1 Jul 2020

MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD SPRING ENERGY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-48-02/2020 DAN WA-24C-08-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-48-02/2020 DAN WA-24C-08-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

MHSB failed to establish denial of natural justice or that the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction; the complaints amounted to an impermissible merits appeal. The adjudicator addressed the contested issues and had discretion regarding further inquiries; therefore OS1 was dismissed and OS2 allowed, enforcing the adjudication decision as a High Court judgment.