Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdictional challenge

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2025

PORATHA E & C SDN. BHD. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD

Citation

WA-24C-124-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-124-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Adjudicator's failure to disclose involvement in an unrelated proceeding did not amount to excess of jurisdiction under s.15(d) CIPAA; objectively there was no real possibility of bias as OS 38 was materially unrelated, AIAC was aware and took no action, and the plaintiff elected to proceed with the adjudication thereby waiving/estopping the objection; no denial of natural justice was shown and no material effect on outcome was demonstrated, therefore application to set aside fails.
13 Nov 2024

TEE JIN TIONG Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah PENCELAH WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-15-283-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-283-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 38(5) is not mandatory in a manner that ousts the court's jurisdiction because s.38(6) expressly permits extension of the referral period; the court therefore has power to regularize the late filing of Form O, and on the facts (short delay, no prejudice, Applicant not at fault) an extension to 30.7.2018 is granted and the strike-out application dismissed.
16 Aug 2024

HONGLER ENTERPRISE SDN BHD CHAI HON SANG (berniaga sebagai HOCK SENG TRADING & CONSTRUCTION)

Citation

WA-24C-130-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-130-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The enforcement application is dismissed because the Adjudication Decision is unenforceable where the individual sole proprietor (Chai Hock Seng) was not named as a party in the adjudication proceedings; legal personality and capacity to be sued are jurisdictional requirements and their absence renders the AD invalid and not enforceable under s.28 CIPAA.
15 Aug 2024

NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD QUANTUM HYDROMECH SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-29-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-29-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the setting aside application because Quantum failed to prove a material denial of natural justice or that the adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction; the issues raised were disagreements on findings of fact and merits which are not grounds under s15 CIPAA; the adjudicator had jurisdiction under ss5,6,27 and validly exercised powers under s25; consequently the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed and the adjudication decision was enforced as a High Court judgment.
15 Aug 2024

QUANTUM HYRDROMECH SDN BHD NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-25-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-25-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the setting aside application because the adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the payment claim and CIPAA, there was no material denial of natural justice (the matters complained of were factual disagreements or non-material procedural matters), and therefore the adjudication decision stood; accordingly the enforcement application was allowed because the adjudicated sum remained unpaid and there was no bar to enforcement under CIPAA and applicable case law.
2 Aug 2024

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD GLOBAL WALL(MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-162-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-162-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudication Decision dated 2.10.2023 was not a nullity: the Payment Claim complied with CIPAA, no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction was established, and the stay pending arbitration was unjustified; however the judge found RM8,046,404.58 had already been paid by Samsung JV and ordered that amount to be deducted/severed from enforcement. Consequently applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed with costs and the enforcement application was allowed in part with directions to release stakeholder funds accordingly.
8 Feb 2024

ZION SHIPPING LIMITED Myanma Five Star Line Co. Ltd.

Citation

WA-27NCC-55-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-55-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Settlement Agreement did not supersede the Charterparty because the letter expressly formed part of the Charterparty and no comprehensive settlement of all Charterparty issues including off‑hire was evidenced; accordingly the plaintiff's off‑hire claim arises from the Charterparty and falls within s20(2)(h) SCA so admiralty in rem jurisdiction was properly invoked; there was insufficient basis to strike out the claim as frivolous or an abuse; the arbitration clause is valid and operative and a mandatory stay of proceedings pending arbitration in Singapore i…
11 Dec 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-160-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-160-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s.37 CIPAA permits adjudication even where arbitration has been commenced; the Payment Claim (read with its covering letter) satisfied s.5(2) CIPAA; the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction nor deny natural justice in a manner warranting setting aside under s.15; therefore OS160 was dismissed with costs, OS162 (enforcement under s.28 CIPAA) was granted and OS161 (stay) was dismissed.
11 Dec 2023

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-162-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-162-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the adjudicator validly exercised jurisdiction despite prior commencement of arbitration under s.37 CIPAA; the Payment Claim (read with the covering letter) satisfied s.5(2) CIPAA; the complained defects were merits issues not falling within the narrow s.15 grounds for setting aside; accordingly OS160 to set aside was dismissed with costs, OS162 to enforce the Adjudication Decision was granted (Order in Terms) and OS161 to stay enforcement was dismissed.
7 Dec 2023

ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN. BHD. 1. ) SSB CAPITAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) MALAYSIA AIRLINES BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-437-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-437-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the plaintiff, as a sub-tenant, had no continuing locus to occupy after the master tenancy expired and the consent order; the plaintiff had notice/acknowledged the consent order and failed to intervene earlier; the second defendant retained contractual rights via a Letter of Confirmation and month-to-month tenancy with EPF; balance of convenience favoured the second defendant and damages were an adequate remedy, so injunction was refused.