JUDGMENT

Faiza Tamby Chik J:

This is an originating motion dated 2 September 1999 (encl. 1) seeking inter alia orders that Interim Award No. 2:

(a) be set aside, or

(b) be remitted to the learned arbitrator for reconsideration.

Interim Award No. 2 is set out in the applicant's affidavit dated 7 September 1999 (encl. 2 p. 85 exh. CSH-11). Gasing Heights Sdn. Bhd., the applicant in this originating motion ("the applicant") is the owner and developer of a project known as:

Carrying out and Completing the Main Building Works of the Proposed Condominium Development (Phase 2) on sub-lots PT 625-632, 641-643 and 645-648, Section 5, Mukim 5, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Project").

and the respondent, Pilecon Building Construction Sdn. Bhd., the respondent in this originating motion ("respondent"), is a contractor by business and trade.

Pursuant to a building contract dated 2 March 1994 ("building contract"), which incorporated the standard PAM Form 1969 edition ("PAM Form"), the applicant appointed the respondent as contractor to carry out the works for the project ("project works"). Disputes arose between the applicant and the respondent with respect to the building contract and the project works, whereupon arbitration proceedings ("arbitration") were commenced. The parties in the arbitration are:

(a) The respondent in the arbitration is the applicant herein;

(b) The claimant in the arbitration is the respondent herein.

By the joint letter of appointment dated 7 September 1995, the arbitrator was selected, appointed and was required to publish written reasoned awards (as opposed to granting silent awards). (See applicant's affidavit dated 7 September 1999 encl. 2 p. 27 exh. CSH-3).

During the arbitration the arbitrator was required to render his decision with respect to issue no. 2, which by agreement and consent of the parties issue no. 2 is set out in the arbitrator's directions dated 17 November 1998, wherein the arbitrator was required to ascertain facts and consequences thereof. (See applicant's affidavit encl. 2, p. 33 exh. CSH-6). Interim Award No. 2 was published on 20 August 1999. Whereupon, the applicant filed this originating motion seeking inter alia to set aside or remit Interim Award No. 2 pursuant to s. 23 and s. 24 of the Arbitration Act 1952.

In deciding whether to set aside or to remit an arbitrator's award, the court will not generally examine or go into the facts and merits of the arbitration. The court will primarily confine its attention to the content of the award. The court will not set aside an arbitrator's adjudication simply because the court would itself have come to a different conclusion. The court will however set aside an arbitrator's decision if it is shown that there is an "error of law on the face of the award."

In Government of Kelantan v. Duff Development Company Limited [1923] AC 395 @ 409, the House of Lords said:

If this be so, I think it follows that, unless it appears on the face of the award that the arbitrator has proceeded on principles which were wrong in law, his conclusions as to the construction of the deed must be accepted. No doubt an award may be set aside for an error of law appearing on the face of it; and no doubt a question of construction is (generally speaking) a question of law. But where a question of construction is the very thing referred for arbitration, then the decision of the arbitrator upon that point cannot be set aside by the court only because the court would itself have come to a different conclusion.

If it appears by the award that the arbitrator has proceeded illegally - for instance, that he has decided on evidence which in law was not admissible or on principles of construction which the law does not countenance, then there is error in law which may be ground for setting aside the award; but the mere dissent of the court from the arbitrator's conclusion on construction is not enough for that purpose.

It is an error if reference is made t