Aliza Sulaiman JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (‘SCJ’) on 18.1.2021 in dismissing the Appellant’s application dated 19.11.2020 (encl. 6) for a stay of the proceedings pursuant to s 10Arbitration Act 2005Act 646] (‘AA 2005’); O. 69, r. 10 and O. 92, r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘RoC 2012’); ss 415053Specific Relief Act 1950Act 137]; ss 6599Subordinate Courts Act 1948Act 92]; and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The SCJ had also ordered the Appellant to pay costs of RM1,000.00 to the Respondent.

[2]After having read and considered the Record of Appeal (encl. 3) and the written submissions filed by the parties (encls. 5, 6, 8 and 9), I had dismissed the appeal with costs of RM2,500.00 to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent, subject to allocatur.

[3]The Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and is pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appeal. My reasons for the determination of this appeal are elaborated below.

[4]In these Grounds of Judgment (‘GoJ’), the parties shall be referred to as they are in the court below.

Background Facts

[5]According to the Statement of Claim dated 13.10.2020 (‘SoC’), the Plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 2016 [Act 777] and has its business address at No. 4, Jalan SS 7/9, Kelana Jaya, 47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. The Plaintiff provides professional architectural services.

[6]The Defendant is similarly a private limited company incorporated under Act 777 and is believed to have its registered address at 2^nd. Floor, No. 17 & 19, Jalan Brunei Barat, Pudu, 55100 Kuala Lumpur and business address at Lot 33545, Batu 5, Jalan Klang Lama, 58000 Kuala Lumpur.

[7]By a Letter of Appointment (‘LoA’) dated 10.2.2014, the Defendant had appointed the Plaintiff as the Architect for the project known as “Cadangan Pembangunan 1 Blok 31 Tingkat Rumah Mampu Milik (351 Unit) Yang Mengandungi: 8 Tingkat Podium Letak Kereta (Tingkat Bawah - Tingkat 7); 1 Tingkat Kemudahan Fasiliti (Tingkat 8); 22 Tingkat Rumah Mampu Milik (Tingkat 9-30) (351 Unit) Termasuk 1 Unit Pencawang Elektrik, 1 Unit Kebuk Sampah, 1 Unit Pondok Pengawal, Di Atas Lot 148, Seksyen 85a, Bandar Baru Sentul, Kuala Lumpur” (‘Sentul Project’) subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the said LoA.

[8]Subsequently, vide a LoA dated 10.3.2014, the Defendant had appointed the Plaintiff as the Architect for the project known as “Cadangan Pembangunan 1 Blok 34 Tingkat Rumah Mampu Milik (524 Unit) Mengandungi: 8 Tingkat Podium Tempat Letak Kereta (Tingkat Bawah - Tingkat 7); 1 Tingkat Kemudahan Fasiliti (Tingkat 8); 25 Tingkat Rumah Mampu Milik Termasuk 1 Pencawang Elektrik, 1 Unit Pondok Pengawal Dan 1 Unit Kebuk Sampah, Di Atas Lot PT 15236, Kampung Muhibah, Mukim Petaling, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur untuk Tujuan Sinerjuta Sdn Bhd.” (‘Kg. Muhibah Project’) subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the said LoA (the LOA dated 10.2.2014 and 10.3.2014 shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the ‘LoAs’).

[9]The Plaintiff pleaded that –

(a)in 2017, the Defendant requested that the Plaintiff prepare, submit and obtain the endorsement (‘certification services’) for the Sijil Formula Unit Syer (‘SiFUS’) for the Sentul Project and Kg. Muhibbah Project (hereinafter referred to collectively as the ‘Projects’);

(b)it has completed the certification services for the Sentul Project and Kg. Muhibbah Project on 12.1.2018 and 19.3.2018, respectively with the issuance of the SiFUS by the Director of Lands and Mines, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur;

(c)it is entitled to payment of the architect fees for the certification services based on General Circular No. 5/2017: Architect’s Additional Scope Of Services For Certification Under The Strata Management Act 2013 (Act 757) For Stratified Development (‘said Circular’) and/ or the Architect’s (Scale of Minimum Fees) Rules 2010;

(d)it has issued invoices, statements and re