Mohd Zamri Bin Mohd Nor (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI NAZA GLOBAL TRADE & SERVICES) (NO. PENDAFTARAN: 202203259837 (003438973-K)) v 1. ) TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD 2. ) Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM)
Catchwords
Plaintiff’s application under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 seeking consequential directions following this Court’s earlier decision dated 16 April 2025, in which the Court declared that the arbitration between the parties may be revived and continued after it was prematurely terminated. The appointed arbitrator refused to proceed with the arbitration. Her refusal was communicated by email, stating that she considered herself functus officio and unable to act further despite this Court’s ruling. The core question is whether the arbitrator’s refusal can override a binding judicial determination. The issues before the Court are: (a) Whether this Court is functus officio in relation to its earlier decision; (b) Whether the Court may invoke Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 to make consequential directions; (c) Whether such directions are necessary to ensure compliance with the Court’s judgment; and (d) Whether the arbitrator’s refusal has any legal basis. Held: the application does not invite the Court to revisit its findings. It merely seeks to ensure effective implementation. The arbitrator’s role is to give effect to the arbitration agreement as clarified by this Court. When an arbitrator refuses to proceed contrary to a judicial ruling, the Court must intervene to protect its own jurisdiction and ensure compliance. The Court is not directing the arbitrator on how to decide any issue. It is merely requiring the arbitrator to continue the process, consistent with the Arbitration Act and the parties’ agreement. Without further directions, the Court’s earlier judgment would be defeated by administrative reluctance. Order 92 rule 4 is precisely designed for such situations.
Practice Areas
Plaintiff’s application under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 seeking consequential directions following this Court’s earlier decision dated 16 April 2025, in which the Court declared that the arbitration between the parties may be revived and continued after it was prematurely terminated. The appointed arbitrator refused to proceed with the arbitration. Her refusal was communicated by email, stating that she considered herself functus officio and unable to act further despite this Court’s ruling. The core question is whether the arbitrator’s refusal can override a binding judicial determination. The issues before the Court are: (a) Whether this Court is functus officio in relation to its earlier decision; (b) Whether the Court may invoke Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 to make consequential directions; (c) Whether such directions are necessary to ensure compliance with the Court’s judgment; and (d) Whether the arbitrator’s refusal has any legal basis. Held: the application does not invite the Court to revisit its findings. It merely seeks to ensure effective implementation. The arbitrator’s role is to give effect to the arbitration agreement as clarified by this Court. When an arbitrator refuses to proceed contrary to a judicial ruling, the Court must intervene to protect its own jurisdiction and ensure compliance. The Court is not directing the arbitrator on how to decide any issue. It is merely requiring the arbitrator to continue the process, consistent with the Arbitration Act and the parties’ agreement. Without further directions, the Court’s earlier judgment would be defeated by administrative reluctance. Order 92 rule 4 is precisely designed for such situations.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
Mohd Zamri Bin Mohd Nor (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI NAZA GLOBAL TRADE & SERVICES) (NO. ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 8, 2025 (citation: wa-24ncvc-4475-11-2024). The case was decided by Mahazan binti Mat Taib.
What was the outcome of Mohd Zamri Bin Mohd Nor (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI NAZA GLOBAL TRADE & SERVICES) (NO. ...?
Mohd Zamri Bin Mohd Nor (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI NAZA GLOBAL TRADE & SERVICES) (NO. ... is a High Court decision dated October 8, 2025. The case was heard by Mahazan binti Mat Taib. See the full judgment for details.