WINSTON M&E SDN BHD v GOODGLOVES INDUSTRIES SDN BHD
Catchwords
-there is no complaint raised against the Adjudicator on procedural unfairness by Goodgloves. -the restriction in awarding interest is only when the interest is awarded on the unpaid sum from the date it becomes due under the contract. In order to award interest in such circumstances, the right to do so should be provided for under the contract. - Goodgloves had failed to discharge its burden to prove on balance of probabilities that the Adjudicator had breached the rule of natural ju - in the absence of any evidences to say otherwise, all 3 conditions have been satisfied and since the Setting Aside has been dismissed, Winston’s application to enforce the AD is allowed
Practice Areas
-there is no complaint raised against the Adjudicator on procedural unfairness by Goodgloves. -the restriction in awarding interest is only when the interest is awarded on the unpaid sum from the date it becomes due under the contract. In order to award interest in such circumstances, the right to do so should be provided for under the contract. - Goodgloves had failed to discharge its burden to prove on balance of probabilities that the Adjudicator had breached the rule of natural ju - in the absence of any evidences to say otherwise, all 3 conditions have been satisfied and since the Setting Aside has been dismissed, Winston’s application to enforce the AD is allowed
Judges (1)
Case Significance
WINSTON M&E SDN BHD v GOODGLOVES INDUSTRIES SDN BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 2, 2025 (citation: ba-24c-6-01-2025). The case was decided by Sumathi a/p Murugiah.
Key issues: -there is no complaint raised against the Adjudicator on procedural unfairness by Goodgloves..
What was the outcome of WINSTON M&E SDN BHD v GOODGLOVES INDUSTRIES SDN BHD?
WINSTON M&E SDN BHD v GOODGLOVES INDUSTRIES SDN BHD is a High Court decision dated July 2, 2025. The case was heard by Sumathi a/p Murugiah. See the full judgment for details.