In Ken Grouting Sdn Bhd v RKT Nusantara Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2020] MLJU 1901, the facts pertained to a dispute between parties to a building contract that adopted the Persatuan Akitek Malaysia Arbitration Rules 2003 Edition ("PAM Rules"), where an arbitral award was delivered beyond the specified deadline, without any attempt to extend the timeline for the delivery of the award.
Pursuant to these facts, the Court of Appeal deliberated on the interpretation of Article 21.3 of the PAM Rules, which stipulates that the "Arbitrator shall deliver his award as soon as practical but not later than 3 months from his receipt of last closing statement from the parties".
Whilst the Court of Appeal recognised that the Arbitrator’s mandate and jurisdiction may be resurrected if time was extended pursuant to section 46 of the Arbitration Act 2005, the Arbitrator or the parties would have to make an application to that effect and could not, of its own volition, extend time. The Court of Appeal further ruled that, without such an application for extension, once a specified deadline lapsed (in this case, as set out in Article 21.3 of the PAM Rules), the Arbitrator no longer has the requisite jurisdiction to make a valid award.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
