LIM JOO THONG V KOPERASI SERBAGUNA TAIPING BARAT BHD [1998] 1 MLJ 657

LIM JOO THONG V KOPERASI SERBAGUNA TAIPING BARAT BHD
[1998] 1 MLJ 657
CIVIL APPEAL NO A-02-146 OF 1996
COURT OF APPEAL
DECIDED-DATE-1: 27 MARCH 1997
SITI NORMA YAAKOB JCA, MAHADEV SHANKAR JCA AND DENIS ONG JCA
CATCHWORDS:
Arbitration – Award – Enforcement – Prohibitory order obtained to seize lands belonging to respondent – Stay of execution of order – Respondent’s counterclaim not arbitrated upon – Whether respondent’s counterclaim should have been arbitrated together with appellant’s claim – Whether there were grounds for not enforcing award – Rules of the High Court 1980 O 47 r 1(1)(a)

Civil Procedure – Stay of execution of judgment – Application for – Arbitration award in favour of appellant – Leave to enforce award as judgment of the High Court – Respondent’s counterclaim not arbitrated upon – Whether this was a relevant consideration – Whether sufficient to constitute special circumstances to stay execution of judgment – Rules of the High Court 1980 O 47 r 1(1)(a)

HEADNOTES:
The appellant (‘LJT’) and the respondent (‘KSTBB’) entered into two contracts for the construction and completion of infrastructure works and 177 units of single storey bungalows in Perak. Both the contracts are independent of each other. Owing to financial difficulties experienced by KSTBB, progress payments and construction works were delayed and the date of completion of the bungalows was extended. Clause 34 of the building contract provided for arbitration by a single arbitrator in the event of any dispute or difference arising under or in connection with the building contract. LJT subsequently commenced an action in the High Court, claiming against KSTBB for work done under the building contract and for interest thereon. On the other hand, KSTBB filed a defence and counterclaim for an aggregate amount and for interest thereon. LJT then applied and was granted an order for a stay of proceedings in his action pending arbitration. Hearing on the arbitration proceeded in the absence of KSTBB although duly notified after two postponements. The arbitrator then awarded a sum in favour of LJT against KSTBB.On 3 June 1994, the High Court ordered leave to LJT to enforce the arbitration award and to enter judgment in terms of such award with costs. LJT subsequently obtained a prohibitory order to seize certain lands of KSTBB in execution of the judgment entered in the arbitration award. Later, however, it was ordered that a public auction under the prohibitory order to recover the judgment debt be postponed until the counterclaim of KSTBB was decided. LJT appealed. KSTBB argued that it had a counterclaim yet to be adjudicated upon by the arbitrator and which was still pending trial. The issue was whether that fact per se, without more, was sufficient to constitute special circumstances which rendered it inexpedient to enforce the judgment dated 3 June 1994 or the prohibitory order in the context of O 47 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (‘the RHC’).

The appellant (‘LJT’) and the respondent (‘KSTBB’) entered into two contracts Perayu (‘LJT’) dan penentang (‘KSTBB’) telah mengikat dua kontrak
for the construction and completion of infrastructure works and 177 units of single storey bungalows in Perak. untuk pembinaan dan penyelesaian kerja-kerja infrastruktur dan 177 unit rumah banglo setingkat di Perak.
Both the contracts are independent of each other. Kedua-dua kontrak adalah bebas antara satu sama lain.
independent of each other. bebas antara satu sama lain.
Owing to financial difficulties experienced by KSTBB, Akibat kesulitan kewangan yang dialami oleh KSTBB,
financial difficulties kesulitan kewangan
experienced yang dialami
progress payments and construction works were delayed bayaran kemajuan dan kerja-kerja pembinaan tertunda
delayed tertunda
and the date of completion of the bungalows was extended. dan tarikh penyiapan rumah banglo dilanjutkan.
date of completion tarikh penyiapan
extended dilanjutkan
Clause 34 of the building contract provided for arbitration by a single arbitrator in the event of any dispute Fasal 34 kontrak pembinaan memperuntukkan timbangtara oleh penimbangtara tunggal sekiranya pertikaian berlaku
a single arbitrator penimbangtara tunggal
or difference arising under or in connection with the building contract. atau perbezaan timbul di bawah atau berhubung dengan kontrak pembinaan.
difference arising perbezaan timbul
in connection with berhubung dengan
LJT subsequently commenced an action in the High Court, claiming against KSTBB for work done under the building contract and for interest thereon. LJT kemudiannya memulakan suatu tindakan di Mahkamah Tinggi, menuntut terhadap KSTBB untuk kerja yang dijalankan di bawah kontrak pembinaan dan untuk faedah atasnya.
commenced memulakan
for interest thereon untuk faedah atasnya
On the other hand, KSTBB filed a defence and counterclaim for an aggregate amount and for interest thereon. Sebaliknya, KSTBB memfailkan pembelaan dan tuntutan balas untuk amaun keseluruhan dan untuk faedah atasnya.
filed a defence memfailkan pembelaan
an aggregate amount amaun keseluruhan
LJT then applied and was granted an order for a stay of proceedings in his action pending arbitration. LJT kemudiannya memohon dan diberikan satu perintah untuk menggantung tindakan undang- undang dalam tindakannya sementara menunggu timbangtara.
a stay of proceedings penggantungan tindakan undang- undang
Hearing on the arbitration proceeded in the absence of KSTBB although duly notified after two postponements. Pembicaraan ke atas timbangtara telah diteruskan dalam ketidakhadiran KSTBB walaupun telah diberitahu selepas dua penundaan.
Hearing on the arbitration Pembicaraan ke atas timbangtara
proceeded telah diteruskan
in the absence of dalam ketidakhadiran
although duly notified walaupun telah diberitahu
postponement penundaan
postponement penangguhan
The arbitrator then awarded a sum in favour of LJT against KSTBB. Penimbangtara tersebut kemudiannya membuat keputusan memberikan jumlah yang memihak kepada LJT terhadap KSTBB.
arbitrator penimbangtara
awarded membuat keputusan
in favour of LJT memihak kepada LJT
On 3 June 1994, the High Court ordered leave to LJT to enforce the arbitration award and to enter judgment in terms of such award with costs. Pada 3 Jun 1994, Mahkamah Tinggi memerintahkan kebenaran diberikan kepada LJT untuk menguatkuasakan keputusan timbangtara dan untuk memasukkan penghakiman seperti dikehendaki keputusan demikian dengan kos.
leave kebenaran
enforce the arbitration menguatkuasakan keputusan timbangtara
enter judgment memasukkan penghakiman
LJT subsequently obtained a prohibitory order to seize certain lands of KSTBB LJT kemudiannya memperolehi satu perintah larangan untuk menyita tanah-tanah KSTBB tertentu
subsequently kemudiannya
obtained memperolehi
a prohibitory order satu perintah larangan
to seize lands untuk menyita tanah-tanah
in execution of the judgment entered in the arbitration award. demi melaksanakan penghakiman yang dimasukkan dalam keputusan timbangtara.
in execution of demi melaksanakan
the judgment entered penghakiman yang dimasukkan
Later, however, it was ordered that a public auction under the prohibitory order Namun demikian, kemudiannya ia diperintahkan bahawa suatu lelong awam di bawah perintah larangan
Later kemudian
however Namun demikian
it was ordered that ia diperintahkan bahawa
a public auction suatu lelong awam
to recover the judgment debt be postponed until the counterclaim of KSTBB was decided. LJT appealed. untuk mendapat balik hutang penghakiman ditunda sehingga tuntutan balas KSTBB diputuskan. LJT merayu.
to recover untuk mendapat balik
judgment debt hutang penghakiman
KSTBB argued that it had a counterclaim yet to be adjudicated upon by the arbitrator KSTBB menghujahkan bahawa ia mempunyai tuntutan balas yang belum lagi diputuskan tara oleh penimbangtara
argued menghujahkan
counterclaim tuntutan balas
yet to be adjudicated belum lagi diputuskan
adjudicated diputuskan
and which was still pending trial. dan masih menunggu perbicaraan.
The issue was whether that fact per se, without more, Isu adalah sama ada hakikat tersebut semata-mata, tanpa lebih daripada itu,
fact per se hakikat tersebut semata-mata
without more tanpa lebih daripada itu
was sufficient to constitute special circumstances adalah mencukupi bagi membentuk hal keadaan yang khas
sufficient mencukupi
constitute membentuk
special circumstances Hal-hal keadaan yang khas
which rendered it inexpedient to enforce the judgment dated 3 June 1994 yang menjadikan ia adalah tidak suaimanfaat untuk menguatkuasakan penghakiman bertarikh 3 Jun 1994
which rendered it yang menjadikan ia
inexpedient tidak suaimanfaat
to enforce the judgment untuk menguatkuasakan penghakiman
or the prohibitory order in the context of O 47 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (‘the RHC’). atau perintah larangan dalam konteks A 47 k 1(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 (‘KMT’).
in the context of dalam konteks
This entry was posted in Building contract and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.