RAGAWANG CORPORATION Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A counterparty in disputes over international-organisation immunity under the 1992 Act, arbitral-award finality under the Arbitration Act 2005, and PAM Contract 2006 dispute resolution.

Ragawang Corporation Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus as a respondent in a group of proceedings touching international-organisation immunity, arbitral awards, and construction-contract dispute resolution.

One matter, decided at the apex level, concerned the extent of immunity enjoyed by an international organisation. It asked whether the legal immunity conferred on the Asian International Arbitration Centre, under the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1992, applies in judicial review proceedings brought against the centre in relation to its domestic and statutory functions as the adjudication authority under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012. The court considered whether a distinction must be drawn between the centre acting as an arbitral institution and as a statutory adjudication authority, and whether the High Court's inherent judicial-review powers could be ousted by that immunity. The catchwords record the appeal as allowed.

A second matter concerned an application to set aside a final arbitral award, engaging sections 37 and 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005. The court's framing emphasised that a setting-aside application can enquire only into the arbitrator's decision-making process and not the decision itself, and canvassed res judicata, the right to be heard, and the meaning of public policy under section 37(1)(b)(ii).

The third matter turned on a PAM Contract 2006. It asked whether clause 30.10 required compliance for dispute resolution, whether a Final Certificate issued under that clause was enforceable despite a dispute, and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the claim notwithstanding an arbitration agreement, given an earlier Court of Appeal judgment directing arbitration.

These proceedings show the company as a counterparty in disputes over institutional immunity, arbitral-award finality and construction contract clauses. Outcomes are stated only as the courts recorded them. The company's consistent posture as respondent across the immunity, arbitral-award and construction-contract matters reflects a counterparty defending decisions and awards already obtained rather than initiating fresh claims.