Mohd Noor Abdullah J:

This is an application (encl. 7) by Lam Eng Rubber Factory (M) Sdn. Bhd. (applicant) for an order of certiorarito quash the decision of the Tribunal Rayuan Lembaga Getah Malaysia (respondent) dated 4 September 2000 which dismissed the appeal by the applicant against the Arbitration award No. 1/2000, 2/2000, 3/2000, 4/2000 and 5/2000 dated 3 May 2000 in relation to the dispute between the applicant and Safic-Alcan (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat 38200-P) of the five sale and purchase contracts of raw rubber No. 99/LB/601960/LB, 99/LB/602066/LB, 99/LB/602077/LB, 99/LB/602087/LB and 99/LB/602068/LB.

Background Facts

Safic-Alcan (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. entered info five different contracts with the applicant for the sale and delivery of raw rubber in 1999. These contracts were subject to the Malaysian Rubber Exchange Rules and Bye Laws. A dispute arose in relation to the said contracts. As a result, the dispute was referred to arbitration under Bye Law 7, Part C, Section 1, Malaysian Rubber Exchange Rules and Bye Laws.

On 3 May 2000, the arbitrators found the applicant to be in breach of the said contracts for the failure to deliver the rubber as agreed and is liable to compensate Safic-Alcan with costs as follows:

Award No. Contract Damages

(a) 1/2000 Contract 1 RM 41,046.70

(b) 2/2000 Contract 2 RM619,500.00

(c) 3/2000 Contract 3 RM185,325.00

(d) 4/2000 Contract 4 RM323,000.00

(e) 5/2000 Contract 5 RM 59,860.00

A total sum of damages awarded was therefore RM1,228,731.70. An appeal was lodged with the respondent and on 4 September 2000, the appeal was dismissed. In the present action, Safic-Alcan who is the intervener raised a preliminary point on the jurisdiction of the court to hear this matter by way of judicial review. The issue in this action as well as the appeal against the decision of this court is whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear the applicant"s application for judicial review.

The Law

(a) Procedural Point

The intervener submits that the application for judicial review in this action is wrong in law. The counsel contends that where the applicant seeks to-set aside the said arbitrator"s awards dated 3 May 2000, the applicant should have filed an application under O. 69 r. 4 of the Rules of the High Courtto be read together with s. 24(2) Arbitration Act 1952. Under O. 69 r. 4, any application to remit any award under s. 23 Arbitration Act 1952or any application to set aside an award under s. 24 Arbitration Act 1952must be filed within six weeks after the publication of the award to the parties. With respect, in my view the intervener"s submission is misconceived. The Arbitration Act 1952 relates to" arbitration generally and O. 69 Rules of the High Court 1980provides for arbitration proceeding in Court; whereas the Malaysian Rubber Exchange (Incorporation) Act 1962 provides specifically for the settlement of disputes by arbitration and the establishment of Arbitration Tribunal to deal with the dispute and the provision for appeals by an Appeal Tribunal. The main prayer by the Applicant in this action is for a writ of certiorarito quash the decision of the Tribunal Rayuan Lembaga Getah Malaysia, the Appellate board. Since the Malaysian Rubber Exchange (Incorporation) Act 1962 is a special statute, which provides for arbitration and appeal, the Arbitration Act 1952 and O. 69has no application at all in this present action.

As the subject matter of the said contracts is raw rubber, the present action is governed by the Malaysian Rubber Exchange (Incorporation) Act 1962, (Act 402) and regulated by the Malaysian Rubber Exchange Rules and Bye Laws. It has its own arbitration provision in s. 94which states:

(1) In the event of any dispute or difference arising either between a Member and the Corporation or between any two or more Members as to:

(a) the construction or interpretation of these Rules or any bye-laws or regulations made thereunder or of any alteration or modification there