COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AIRBUS HELICOPTERS MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
AERIEL POWER LINES SDN BHD – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[1] It has become an almost reflexive action when appearing for the first case management date by way of e-review for the Counsel for a defendant to invariably ask for an extension of time to file defence, especially when the Statement of Claim has just been served and when it runs into many paragraphs.
[2] Here, the Statement of Claim had been served just 2 days before the first case management hearing, running into no less than 100 paragraphs, consisting of many more sub-paragraphs of technical details with respect to the malfunctioning of a helicopter.
[3] Little did the defendant's Counsel know that such a request would result in the plaintiff vigorously resisting a subsequent application to stay the Court proceedings under s 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 (" AA 2005") ("Stay Application") with the argument being advanced that the defendant had clearly and unequivocally elected to abandon arbitration in favour of litigation before the High Court. Here, no defence was filed, for as soon as the contract documents were made available by the defendant to its solicitors, its solicitors promptly filed the Stay Application.
[4] The High Court agreed with
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.