Kasugi Prima Sdn Bhd v Cobrain Holdings Sdn Bhd
Outcome
Page 41 of 41 1147) here are totally devoid of merits and we hereby dismiss both of the Appeals with costs. [64] In respect of Appeal 1147, we order costs of RM25,000.00 to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent subject to allocatur. As for Appeal 1146, the Appellant is to pay the Respondent costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocatur.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (4)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
Restates the narrow grounds for curial interference with an arbitral award: an arbitrator acting under section 21(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 may apply her own expertise in analysing the evidence without breaching natural justice, and a challenge that does not establish such a breach will be dismissed.
This Court of Appeal decision, delivered in a judgment of the court by Azimah binti Omar JCA (sitting with Mariana Yahya and Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh JJCA), concerns a challenge to an arbitral award in a construction dispute between Kasugi Prima Sdn Bhd and Cobrain Holdings Sdn Bhd. It was one of two related appeals (numbered 1146 and 1147) heard together, arising from High Court decisions on originating summonses that had dealt with the award. The core question was whether the arbitrator had acted within the authority conferred by section 21(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 and whether, in analysing the evidence using her own expertise, she had acted in breach of the rules of natural justice.
The court answered the decisive issue in favour of upholding the award. It held that the learned High Court judge was correct to find that the manner in which the arbitrator invoked her authority under section 21(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 was not in breach of the rules of natural justice, and that an arbitrator is entitled to bring her own expertise to bear in weighing the evidence without thereby denying the parties a fair hearing. Considering its answers on the issues before it, the court concluded that the appeal was devoid of merit. The court emphasised that the supervisory jurisdiction over an award is limited, and that a party disappointed by an arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence cannot dress up its disagreement as a natural-justice complaint in order to reopen the merits. In this appeal (1146) the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs of RM10,000, subject to allocatur; the companion appeal was dealt with in the same judgment on a separate costs order. The decision is a useful restatement of the narrow grounds on which a Malaysian court will interfere with an arbitral award, and of an arbitrator's latitude to apply her own expertise consistently with natural justice, reflecting the pro-enforcement policy underlying the Arbitration Act 2005.
Summary
Kasugi Prima Sdn Bhd appealed against the High Court's decision allowing the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award in favour of Cobrain Holdings Sdn Bhd, arguing procedural impropriety in the arbitrator's invocation of authority under Section 21(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 to draw on her own expertise. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's analysis of available evidence using her own expertise did not breach natural justice, and that the appellant's complaints were in substance dissatisfaction with the merits of the award.
What was the main ground of challenge to the arbitral award, and how was it decided?
The challenge was that the arbitrator had exceeded or misused her authority under section 21(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 and had breached natural justice by analysing the evidence using her own expertise. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to find no breach of natural justice, and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.
What order did the court make in this appeal?
The court dismissed appeal 1146 and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs of RM10,000, subject to allocatur. The related appeal heard together with it carried its own separate costs order in the same judgment.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (9)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (w-02ca-1146-07-2023)