MEGA SASA SDN. BHD. v Kerajaan Malaysia

wa-24carb-19-05-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 May 2024 • WA-24C(ARB)-19-05/2022 • 92 min read

15 cases cited (1 SG, 14 foreign)

Catchwords

Whether a reference to an arbitration by the High Court pursuant to sub-s 24A(2) of the CJA 1964 is the same as a reference to arbitration under the AA 2005 - Whether the terms of the consent order dated 16.1.2020 (‘Consent Order’) were breached by the Arbitrator when a copy of the Award was not given to the respective parties first before final judgment was entered in terms of the Award on 21.3.2022 - Whether there was a breach of the rules of natural justice by the High Court, namely the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), in that a copy of the Award was not given to the respective parties before the Said Judgment was entered, as a result of which the party who was dissatisfied with the Award had no opportunity to move the Court of an application to set aside the Award before the Said Judgment was entered - Whether the Court is seised with the jurisdiction to enter the Said Judgment suo moto without an application by any party to the arbitration for leave to enforce the Award - Whether, having regard to the answers for the 2nd, 3rd and/ or 4th Issues, the Said Judgment is liable to be set aside by way of a collateral action - Whether the Award can be set aside even after the same has been entered into the Said Judgment - Whether, on the proper construction of paragraph 24A(3)(b) CJA 1964, the High Court is seised with jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside the Award by way of a collateral action initiated by the aggrieved party - Whether the Arbitrator erred in law and/ or in fact in holding that the Respondent’s refusal to grant the Applicant’s EoT No. 2 was reasonable and/ or conscionable - Error in not taking into account delay in the Building Plan (‘BP’) approval - Error in not taking into account the late Bomba approval - Error in not taking into account changes in the mechanical and electrical (‘M&E’) design - Error in not taking into account the change in the ICT system - Error in failing to take into account the refusal by Ipmuda Utara Sdn Bhd (‘Ipmuda’) to supply materials to the Applicant

Judges (1)

Aliza binti Sulaiman Delivered

Counsel (8)

Damien Chan, Hannibal & Ng Chambers Firm Damien Chan Kay Ding Counsel Applicant Ian Hannibal Liang bin Danial Liang Counsel Applicant Jeff Ng Qin Liang Counsel Applicant Lim Choon Khim Counsel Applicant Nur Melati Diana Abd Wahab Counsel Respondent Rohaiza Binti Hamzah Counsel Respondent Wan Shahida Binti Wan Omar Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Kerajaan Malaysia Respondent MEGA SASA Sdn Bhd Applicant

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act

s 15(2)

Arbitration Act 1892

s 12

Arbitration Act 1902

s 15

Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012

s 13

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

s 24A(2)

Federal Constitution

Art 121 Art 121(1) Art 5(1)

Interpretation Act

s 8(1)

NSW Act

s 16(2) s 4

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (15)

SLR (1)

[2000] 1 SLR(R) 648

UK (1)

[1993] UKPC 40

AU (1)

[2017] FCA 1340

MY (12)

[1983] 1 MLJ 175 [1998] 1 MLJ 393 [2002] 4 MLJ 105 [2010] 9 CLJ 202 [2014] MLJU 1775 [2019] MLJU 843 [2020] 12 MLJ 198 [2020] 5 MLJ 762 [2020] 5 MLRH 70 [2020] MLJU 54 [2021] 1 MLJ 750 [2021] 6 MLJ 255

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24carb-19-05-2022)