Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay pending arbitration

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2025

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-132-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-132-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing since parties had adequate written opportunities, res judicata did not bar the subsequent adjudication because the asserted claims were not previously decided or paid as at IPC No.59, no fraud was established on the balance of probabilities or shown to have improperly procured the AD, and there were no special circumstances to warrant a stay pending arbitration; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and the enforcement orders sought in…
23 Jun 2025

Eversendai Constructions (M) Sdn. Bhd. Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-24C-150-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-150-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under s25 CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing because written submissions and further queries were permitted, correctly found res judicata did not apply to the CIPAA 2 claims (retention sums were not previously adjudicated or paid), there was no evidence of fraud improperly procuring the AD, and SUJV failed to show special circumstances or convincing evidence of ECSB’s insolvency to justify a stay; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and enforcement orders in OS150 granted.
23 Jun 2025

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-133-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-133-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and in accordance with section 25 CIPAA in conducting the adjudication without an oral hearing, found res judicata did not apply because the later claims were not previously decided or paid as at IPC No.59, found no fraud or breach of natural justice, declined to grant a stay pending arbitration absent special circumstances or convincing insolvency risk, and therefore dismissed SUJV's applications and granted enforcement in terms of OS150.
21 Apr 2025

GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN. BHD. DAMAI CITY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-143-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-143-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudication decision was valid despite being delivered after 45 working days because DCSB caused lawful suspension of proceedings via restraining orders and judicial management filings under Companies Act ss 368 and 410 which tolled the adjudication timeline and prevented continuation without court leave; the adjudicator acted within statutory powers (including rejecting a rejoinder) and properly dealt with issues including Interim Certificate No.24, hence there were no special circumstances or clear errors to set aside or stay the adjudication decision.
21 Apr 2025

DAMAI CITY SDN BHD GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-139-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-139-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the adjudication decision dated 20.8.2024 is valid and not void for late delivery because timelines under s12 CIPAA were suspended by restraining orders and judicial management applications under Companies Act 2016 s368 and s410 and by the respondent's failure to pay its share of the advance security deposit; the adjudicator acted within statutory powers in refusing a rejoinder and in deciding matters confined to the payment claim; res judicata did not bar the claims relating to different interim certificates; applications to set aside and to stay the adjudication decision…
8 Nov 2024

1. ) Hasnor Afifah Binti Mohd Noor (BERNIAGA DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA SIMFORNI HUMAIRA RESOURCES (NO. SYARIKAT: 201503250268 (2469912-M) 2. ) LONTEX GROUP Sp. z.o.o. 1. ) XFYRE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) TETUAN CHAMBERS OF ZHAFRI AMINURASHID (DAHULUNYA

Citation

BA-24NCC-15-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-15-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 56 was dismissed because the 1st Defendant had waived any right to a stay and to interim relief under the Arbitration Act by taking unqualified steps in the High Court (participation in hearings, filing pleadings and other actions), so the court retained jurisdiction; the security for costs application was unjustified and disproportionate and was dismissed on the facts; issues about affidavits by a bankrupt director were noted but the court proceeded to decide Enclosure 56 on its merits.
25 Oct 2024

CARIMIN ENGINEERING SERVICES SDN BHD DYNAMIC NAVIGATION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-359-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-359-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found a contemporaneous bona fide dispute (solicitors' letter dated 11.7.2023 and partial payment of undisputed sum) and that issuance of the section 466(1) statutory notice while Suit 813 and a pending section 10 stay application existed was an abuse of process intended to circumvent ongoing proceedings; the plaintiff would suffer irreparable reputational and commercial harm and the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, therefore a Fortuna injunction restraining presentation of a winding-up petition was warranted and granted.
9 Sept 2024

1. ) SAPURA HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) EV-DYNAMIC SDN BHD MMC GAMUDA KVMRT (PDP SSP) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-152-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-152-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor exceed jurisdiction: NOC1 and the underestimation/variation issues were pleaded or reasonably connected to pleaded issues; the corrections made under section 12(7) were proper computational/arithmetical corrections after consideration of parties' letters; there was no functus officio; no exceptional circumstances justified a stay; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the enforcement application granted (Order in Terms for prayers (a) and (b) of enclosure 1 of OS 152).
3 Sept 2024

PEMPETISYEN BINA GOODYEAR BERHAD (In Liquidation) IMEJ TENGGARA SDN. BHD

Citation

JA-28NCC-56-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28NCC-56-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that clause 45 unambiguously covers the parties' disputes arising from the Design and Build Contract, including post‑completion defects and payment claims, and that the existence of a bona fide dispute over a substantial unpaid contract sum meant the winding‑up petition should be stayed pending determination by arbitration; accordingly enclosure 6 was allowed and enclosure 1 was stayed until arbitration is concluded.
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.