SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD v BELLWORTH DEVELOPMENTS SDN BHD

wa-24carb-35-08-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 2 July 2024 • WA-24C(ARB)-35-08/2023 • 71 min read

45 cases cited (10 SG, 35 foreign)

Catchwords

Whether the Award should be set aside under subparagraph 37(1)(a)(vi) AA 2005 as the submission of the Draft Final Award for technical review was not in accordance with Rule 12(2) of the AIAC Rules thereby depriving the Arbitrator of his mandate and he has no jurisdiction to make a valid award - Whether the Award should be set aside under subparagraphs 37(1)(a)(iv) and (v) AA 2005 as the Arbitrator introduced and decided on a new difference i.e. the validity of the CNC and Bellworth’s entitlement to impose LD as a stand-alone issue independent of Setiakon’s applications for EoT - Whether the Award should be set aside on the ground that Bellworth was unable to present its case; the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties; and the Award is in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia as a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the Award under subparagraphs 37(1)(a)(iii) and (vi) and 37(1)(b)(ii) read together with 37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005 - Whether the Award should be set aside pursuant to subparagraphs 37(1)(b)(ii) read with 37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005 due to inconsistent or defective chain of reasonin

Judges (1)

Aliza binti Sulaiman Delivered

Counsel (10)

Harold & Lam Partnership Firm Saranjit Singh Firm Amy Hiew Kar Yi Counsel Plaintiff Balan Nair Thamodaran Counsel Defendant Felicia Lai Wai Kim Counsel Plaintiff Lam Wai Loon Counsel Plaintiff Nahendran Navaratnam Counsel Defendant Reuben Raphael Joseph Counsel Defendant Saranjit Singh Counsel Defendant Wong Wye Wah Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

BELLWORTH DEVELOPMENTS Sdn Bhd Respondent SETIAKON BUILDERS Sdn Bhd Applicant

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)

Cases Cited (45)

SG (7)

[2010] SGHC 20 [2010] SGHC 80 [2012] SGCA 35 [2013] SGHC 186 [2015] SGCA 63 [2021] SGHC 60 [2022] SGCA 1

SLR (3)

[2007] 3 SLR 86 [2012] 4 SLR 98 [2015] 3 SLR 488

UK (2)

[2007] EWHC 1821 [2015] EWHC 311

MY (29)

[1996] 1 MLJ 387 [2007] 4 MLJ 113 [2010] 5 CLJ 758 [2013] 3 MLJ 755 [2014] 9 MLJ 149 [2015] 1 CLJ 617 [2015] 11 MLJ 32 [2015] 6 MLJ 126 [2018] 2 MLJ 636 [2018] 3 MLJ 608 [2018] 4 MLJ 799 [2018] MLJU 630 [2019] 2 MLJ 413 [2020] 12 MLJ 198 [2020] MLJU 2366 [2020] MLJU 660 [2021] 1 MLJ 1 [2021] 2 MLRH 78 [2021] 3 MLJ 505 [2021] 4 MLJ 622 [2022] 8 CLJ 103 [2022] MLJU 1354 [2022] MLJU 2021 [2022] MLJU 3049 [2022] MLJU 824 [2023] MLJU 1794 [2023] MLJU 3044 [2024] 4 MLJ 288 [2024] 7 MLJ 617

HK (2)

[2015] 5 HKC 509 [2024] 2 HKC 510

IN (2)

(2019) 20 SCC 1 (2022) 3 SCC 121

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24carb-35-08-2023)