02i-66-12-2023w — ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE v ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD

Catchwords

Judicial review application - The extent of immunity enjoyed by an international organisation in Malaysia - Whether the legal immunity conferred on the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) in its capacity as an international organisation pursuant to the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1992 (‘the IOPIA’) applies in judicial review proceedings brought against the AIAC in relation to its domestic and statutory functions under the the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – Whether the immunity from suit and from other legal process in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the IOPIA conferred upon the AIAC as an international organisation under the KLRCA Regulations is applicable to render the AIAC immune from judicial review of acts and decisions made by the AIAC in its capacity as the domestic and statutory adjudication authority under the CIPAA - Whether the High Court’s inherent powers in judicial review proceedings can be ousted by the immunity conferred on the AIAC by virtue of legislations passed by Parliament, i.e., the IOPIA and the CIPAA - Whether there is a necessity to draw a distinction on the capacity of the AIAC either as an international arbitral institution or the statutory adjudication authority before the AIAC is entitled to enjoy the immunity conferred under the IOPIA and the CIPAA – Appeal allowed.

Practice Areas

Judicial review application

Judges (3)

Abu Bakar bin Jais Delivered Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim Coram Hanipah binti Farikullah Delivered

Counsel (14)

Attorney General's Chambers Firm C.S. Tan Seah & Partners Firm Cheah Teh & Su Firm Sanjay Mohan Firm Shearn Delamore & Co. Firm Andy Gan Kok Jin Counsel Respondent Jamie Goh Moon Hoong Counsel Appellant Rosamirah Insyirah Binti Zamri Counsel Respondent Sachin Niranjan a/l Thavalingam Counsel Appellant Siew Suet Mey Counsel Respondent Sivabalah Nadarajah Counsel Appellant Teh Eng Lay Counsel Respondent Vaneesa Thong Chon Yen Counsel Respondent Wan Shahida Binti Wan Omar Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE Sdn Bhd Respondent Asian International Arbitration Centre Appellant

Summary

This appeal was heard together with Civil Appeal No. 01(i)-31-12/2023(W), both concerning the extent of immunity enjoyed by the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) in judicial review proceedings related to its statutory functions under the CIPAA. The Federal Court allowed the appeal, holding that section 34(1) of CIPAA provides statutory immunity protecting AIAC from suit, including judicial review, and that this legislative intervention curtails the courts' inherent judicial review power.

What was the outcome of ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE v ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD?

<p>This appeal was heard together with Civil Appeal No. 01(i)-31-12/2023(W), both concerning the extent of immunity enjoyed by the Asian International...

Statutes Cited

Federal Constitution

Art 4(1) Art 96

Interpretation Act

s 17A

NZ Act

s 70

Singapore Act

s 28(1) s 32 s 32(2)

SOP Act

s 30(2)

Specific Relief Act 1950

s 54(i)

Cases Cited (22)

SG (1)

[2019] SGCA 37

UK (5)

[1986] QB 716 [1995] 2 WLR 247 [1997] 2 All ER 779 [2019] UKSC 22 [2020] AC 491

AU (1)

[2010] NSWCA 190

MY (15)

[1994] 1 MLJ 566 [1997] 1 CLJ 147 [1998] 3 CLJ 85 [2004] 1 CLJ 81 [2004] 2 MLJ 257 [2006] 3 MLJ 389 [2011] 6 MLJ 297 [2015] 6 MLJ 751 [2015] 8 CLJ 921 [2017] 3 MLJ 561 [2020] 10 MLJ 409 [2020] 7 CLJ 561 [2021] 5 MLJ 209 [2022] 3 AMR 1 [2022] 3 MLJ 356