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)

Case Significance

Confirms that an arbitrator cannot, by asserting she is functus officio, override a binding High Court ruling reviving an arbitration, and that the court may use Order 92 rule 4 and its inherent jurisdiction to issue consequential directions ensuring its judgment is implemented, consistent with the minimal-intervention policy of the Arbitration Act 2005.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for consequential directions under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 to give effect to an earlier judgment reviving an arbitration, after the appointed arbitrator refused to proceed. In April 2025 the court had held that an arbitration between the plaintiff, a sole proprietor trading under a business name, and the first defendant, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, had been terminated only on a technical irregularity — an incorrect business registration number of the plaintiff — that the plaintiff's legal identity remained unchanged, that the arbitration agreement remained valid and binding, and that the termination was not a final award and so was not conclusive; it declared the arbitration capable of revival and continuation. When the parties sought to resume, however, the appointed arbitrator declined to act, asserting by email that she considered herself functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to continue. The plaintiff applied for consequential directions to ensure implementation of the earlier ruling. The court held that the arbitrator's refusal could not override a binding judicial determination: it had already ruled that the termination was not a final award and did not extinguish jurisdiction, an arbitrator cannot unilaterally override a High Court decision on a point of law or jurisdiction, and an unaddressed refusal would effectively nullify a binding court order. It emphasised that it was not directing the arbitrator how to decide any issue, only requiring the process to continue, which was consistent with sections 8 and 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 promoting minimal judicial intervention while allowing the court to resolve questions of jurisdiction. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court granted the application, declared the steps taken since the earlier decision valid, ordered the arbitration to resume forthwith before the same or a substitute arbitrator, directed the arbitrator and the first defendant to comply, and made no order as to costs.