JUDGMENT
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.