Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Natural justice (procedural fairness)

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2025

KARUNAKARAN A/L CHATU 1. ) PUVENENTHIRAN A/L GUNNASEKARAN 2. ) AZIZUL ANNUAR DATUK PATINGGI TAN SRI ADENAN SATEM 3. ) TAN SRI DATO' SRI (DR) MOHAMAD NORZA ZAKARIA

Citation

WA-24NCvC-4419-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-4419-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the dispute over TNS's membership with TM falls within the mediation/arbitration framework in TM's Article 26.1 and OCM's Article 22; OCM has power under its constitution to mediate such disputes. TM breached procedural fairness by failing to communicate its Council decision and reasons, and its inconsistent conduct precluded resisting mediation. The 1st Defendant's convening of the 17.11.2024 EGM was unconstitutional under TNS Constitution. Accordingly the court ordered OCM (with TM) to proceed to mediation via an independent mediator appointed by KLRCA/AIAC within 30 day…
2 Apr 2024

MERCU BINARAYA SDN BHD JETSON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-201-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-201-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no breach of natural justice nor excess of jurisdiction: Jetson failed to comply with CIPAA timelines, the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably exercised discretion to refuse extension, and the AD therefore stands and is enforceable; Setting Aside Application dismissed and Enforcement Application allowed.
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 Oct 2023

DITROLIC SDN. BHD. SAMAIDEN SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24C-19-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-19-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed Ditrolic's application to set aside because the Adjudicator had considered the LAD/set-off issues and exercised powers under s.25 CIPAA; alleged denial of natural justice amounted to complaints about factual assessment which are not grounds under s.15(b). The stay was dismissed because commencement of arbitration alone and alleged financial weakness were insufficient; clause requiring senior management settlement consultations prevented arbitration from advancing to displace CIPAA’s purpose. All statutory conditions for enforcement under s.28 were met and enforcement was a…
26 Jun 2023

TOSHIBA ELEVATOR (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD ENG HAN ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-51-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-51-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Arbitrator's findings were within the scope of the submission and related to pleaded issues; there was no material breach of natural justice or public policy that would have affected the outcome; errors of fact or law identified did not justify setting aside the Award; therefore the application to set aside is dismissed and the Award stands.
18 May 2023

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. REBANA MAJU SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-5-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-5-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court set aside the Adjudication Decision in its entirety because the Adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding merits of a Progress Claim (PC 38) that was premature under contract final account procedures, by allowing set-off for assigned/overpaid sums which constituted a separate cause of action not proper as a set-off in the adjudication, and by allowing set-off for rectification works without first determining the legality of the plaintiff’s termination; additionally the Adjudicator failed to give adequate reasons on the contra unit entitlement amount, constituting breac…
5 Jan 2023

MOHD AZIZUL BIN ABD WAHAB 1. ) TAN SRI DATO' SERI ABDUL HAMID BIN BADOR (IG) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-25-33-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-33-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed. Court held charges were sufficiently particularised by annexed lists/registers, absence of full individual investigation papers did not amount to breach of natural justice because registers provided necessary particulars, IGSO/PTKPN are valid administrative directions under s97 Police Act and disciplinary action under relevant regulations was lawful, disciplinary board challenge lacked evidential basis, and constitutional equality challenge failed because applicant was not in same class as those compared; therefore no basis to quash disciplinary decision or order reinst…
31 May 2022

MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD KWSL BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-20-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-20-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed both setting aside applications because CIPAA permits adjudication to proceed concurrently with court litigation and the statutory grounds in s15 do not include prior commencement of suit or alleged mala fides from exercising statutory rights; adjudicators correctly confined jurisdiction to the specific contract underlying each payment claim so counterclaims based on other contracts or torts were not permissible in adjudication and could not exceed the adjudication claim; stays were refused because no clear and unequivocal error was shown and the interest of justice did no…
4 Feb 2022

OCNED WATER TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) UEM BUILDERS BERHAD 2. ) EDGENTA PROPEL BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed both applications because the Arbitrator's findings were rooted in the parties' pleadings, evidence and submissions (including express pleadings and oral evidence on EoT, commencement, and delayed issuance of LoA), the impugned observations were part of the tribunal's reasoning or immaterial to the outcome, UB-EP failed to prove a new unpleaded issue or a material breach of natural justice that affected the result, and the court exercised residual discretion not to set aside the Award; procedural non-compliance in Rules of Court did not vitiate enforcement under s38/s39 AA…
17 Jan 2022

RAPS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-18-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-18-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the adjudicator did not breach the rules of natural justice in any material way and even if a procedural flaw existed it would not have altered the outcome; the arbitration relied upon by Itramas was not lawfully instituted due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-arbitration steps so s16(1)(b) did not entitle a stay, and the court therefore allowed enforcement under s28 CIPAA while granting only an ad interim stay of execution on appeal but prohibiting use of frozen funds.