MAGNIFICIENT EMPIRE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 568020-D) MPI GENERALI INSURANS BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 14730-X)

MAGNIFICIENT EMPIRE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 568020-D) MPI GENERALI INSURANS BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 14730-X)

Condition 10 of the fidelity guarantee policy is clear, valid and enforceable and, as a condition precedent and consistent with the exceptions in Section 29 Contracts Act 1950 and authorities such as Dancom, the Plaintiff’s failure to refer the rejected claim to arbitration within twelve months amounted to abandonment of the claim; accordingly the Sessions Court’s striking out of the writ and statement of claim was upheld.

Citation
WA-12ANCC-35-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff (in Sessions Court): Magnificient Empire Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Defendant (in Sessions Court): MPI Generali Insurans Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 September 2021
Case Number
WA-12ANCC-35-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (insurance Contract Dispute) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Striking Out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court order striking out Plaintiff's writ and Statement of Claim affirmed
Legal Topics
Fidelity Guarantee Policy, Arbitration Clause as Condition Precedent, Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19(1) ROC, Section 29 Contracts Act 1950 (time Restriction), Limitation Act Interplay
Source Language
Malay/English
Insurance Law Contract Law Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Fidelity Guarantee Policy Arbitration Clause as Condition Precedent Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19(1) ROC Section 29 Contracts Act 1950 (time Restriction) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magnificient Empire Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Plaintiff (in Sessions Court)

MPI Generali Insurans Berhad

Respondent / Defendant (in Sessions Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (insurance Contract Dispute) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Striking Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 44 cheques fell within policy coverage as acts committed during employment
  2. 2 Whether Condition 10 (arbitration clause) is valid and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether Condition 10 contravenes Section 29 Contracts Act 1950 and thus is void

Ratio Decidendi

Condition 10 of the fidelity guarantee policy is clear, valid and enforceable and, as a condition precedent and consistent with the exceptions in Section 29 Contracts Act 1950 and authorities such as Dancom, the Plaintiff’s failure to refer the rejected claim to arbitration within twelve months amounted to abandonment of the claim; accordingly the Sessions Court’s striking out of the writ and statement of claim was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court order striking out Plaintiff's writ and Statement of Claim affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Writ and Statement of Claim struck out pursuant to Order 18 r 19(1) ROC as action was bound to fail due to non‑compliance with Condition 10