Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Purposive statutory interpretation

Legal area

Court

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…
28 Jul 2023

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-166-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-166-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s37(1) CIPAA is permissive and must be construed purposively; adjudication may be initiated even after arbitration or court proceedings commence and does not ipso facto oust adjudicator jurisdiction. The payment claim met s5(2) CIPAA requirements; there was no jurisdictional excess nor breach of natural justice warranting setting aside. No clear and unequivocal errors or injustice justified a stay. Consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforced as a High Court judgment.
6 Apr 2020

Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd LAIN-LAIN Unique Mix Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28JM-6-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-6-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that nothing in the Companies Act 2016 expressly bars unsecured creditors from being heard or intervening in a judicial management application; Rule 13 of the subsidiary Corporate Rescue Mechanism Rules cannot displace the parent Act; Section 409 only creates a veto for a secured creditor entitled to appoint a receiver; the court has discretion under Order 15 r6(2)(b)(ii) to permit intervention where rights will be affected and therefore allowed the proposed interveners to be heard with costs in the cause.

Malaysia Case Law

ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD JKP SDN BHD

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd LAIN-LAIN Unique Mix Sdn Bhd