SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 6314

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH, FCJ
ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE – Appellant
Versus
ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: 01(i)-31-12-2023(W) & 02(i)-66-12-2023(W)]



Advocates:
For the appellant: Sivabalah Nadarajah (Jamie Goh Moon Hoong & Sachin Niranjan
Thavalingam with him); M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
For the 1st respondent: Teh Eng Lay (Andy Gan Kok Jin & Vanessa Thong Chon Yen
with him); M/s Cheah Teh & Su
For the 2nd respondent: Siew Suet Mey; M/s Sanjay Mohan
For the 3rd respondent: Rosamirah Insyirah Zamri; M/s CS Tan Seah & Partners
For the 4th & 5th respondents: Wan Shahida Wan Omar; AG’s Chambers

The AIAC is immune from judicial review in its statutory functions under the CIPAA, as its actions are protected by the IOPIA and CIPAA, ensuring its independence.

Headnote:(A) Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Section 34(1) - International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1992 - Immunity of AIAC from judicial review proceedings - The AIAC, as an international organization, enjoys immunity from suit and legal processes, including judicial review, under the IOPIA and CIPAA. The Court of Appeal's finding that the AIAC's functions as a statutory adjudication authority were not covered by this immunity was incorrect. The AIAC's statutory functions fall within its broader mandate, and the immunity is necessary to preserve its independence and effectiveness. The AIAC acted within its powers and in good faith, thus maintaining its immunity. (Paras 41, 118, 154)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of immunity - The court held that the words 'suit' and 'legal process' in the IOPIA encompass judicial review proceedings, affirming the need for immunity to protect the AIAC's functions. (Paras 110, 115)

(C) Good Faith - The requirement of good faith in the performance of functions under the CIPAA does not negate the AIAC's immunity but reinforces it. (Paras 120, 124)

(D) Legislative Intent - The provisions of the IOPIA and CIPAA do not oust the High Court's inherent powers but provide a framework for immunity. (Paras 155)

JUDGMENT

Hanipah Farikullah FCJ (Majority):

Introduction

[1] There are two appeals before us. In the first, the appellant is the Asian International Arbitration Centre ('the AIAC'), formerly known as the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration ('the KLRCA'). The AIAC is an independent and supranational arbitral institution established in 1978 under the auspices of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization ('the AALCO').

[2] The 1st respondent is One Amerin Residence Sdn Bhd ('One Amerin'), and the 3rd respondent is Ragawang Corporation Sdn Bhd ('Ragawang'). One Amerin and Ragawang are both private companies incorporated in Malaysia and were, respectively, the respondent and the claimant in an adjudication claim commenced by Ragawang against One Amerin pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('the CIPAA').

[3] The 2nd respondent, Choon Hon Leng, was the adjudicator appointed by the AIAC for the aforesaid adjudication proceedings under s 21(b)(i) of the CIPAA. The 4th and 5th respondents are respectively the Minister of Works and the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law).

[4] In the second appeal, the AIAC is also the appellant, while One Amerin is the sole respondent.

[5] The appeals before us concern the extent of immunity enjoyed by an international organisation in Malaysia. More particularly, these appeals raise the issue of whether the legal immunity conferred on the AIAC in its capacity as an international organisation pursuant to the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1992 ('the IOPIA') applies in judicial review proceedings brought against the AIAC in relation to its domestic and statutory functions under the CIPAA.

[6] These appeals arise from a judicial review application filed in the High Court by One Amerin to challenge certain acts carried out by the AIAC in the performance of its functions as the statutory adjudication authority designated under the CIPAA. The High Court struck out the application on the grounds that the AIAC was clothed with immunity under both the IOPIA and the CIPAA from any Court proceedings including judicial review. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court , holding that the AIAC was only entitled to assert immunity pursuant to the IOPIA in its capacity as an international arbitral institution and not in its capacity as the statutory adjudication authority. The Court of Appeal further held that the legal immunity conferred on the AIAC by virtue of both the IOPIA and the CIPAA did not extend to judicial review proceedings.

[7] The matter came up before us on 29 August 2024. At the close of arguments, we reserved our judgment to be given at a later date. We do so now.

Background Facts

[8] The background facts leading to this appeal can be gleaned from the judgments of the Courts below, the submissions of the parties and the appeal records. We respectfully adopt the same with some modifications where necessary.

[9] By way of a letter of award dated 8 December 2014, One Amerin appointed Ragawang as the contractor for the construction of Amerin Mall and Residence in Seri Kembangan, Selangor. The project was carried out and completed by Ragawang.

[10] Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties with regard to the payment for the work done by Ragawang for the project. As a result, Ragawang commenced adjudication proceedings against One Amerin pursuant to the CIPAA by the issuance of a notice of adjudication dated 15 August 2018 for the sum of RM8,771,124.07. The notice of adjudication was duly served on One Amerin on 17 August 2018 pursuant to s 8(1) of the CIPAA.

[11] Thereafter, Ragawang registered the adjudication proceedings at the AIAC by serving a notice dated 21 August 2018 on the Director of the AIAC in accordance with r 2 of the AIAC Adjudication Rules & Procedure ('the AIAC Rules').

[12] On 12 September 2018, Ragawang submitted a request to the Director of the AIAC for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top