Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Enforcement under s28 cipaa

Legal area

Court

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.
4 Sept 2020

1. ) MEI HE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) EOSH INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) EOSH INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 2. ) MEI HE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-27-01/2020 & WA-24C-45-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-27-01/2020 & WA-24C-45-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held there was no breach of natural justice and no excess of jurisdiction: the Adjudicator had considered the bad faith and withholding arguments and explained why an oral hearing and witnesses were unnecessary given the written material; s35 precluded conditional payment/set-off arguments affecting EOSH's entitlement; accordingly the Setting Aside and Stay applications were dismissed and the Enforcement application was allowed, with costs ordered against MHD.