1. ) SHARINA BINTI MOHAMED SULTAN 2. ) ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH 3. ) MARY ELIZABETH A/P S. SANDANASAMY AGENSI PEKERJAAN MIMS SDN BHD (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai MIMS Careers Sdn Bhd)

1. ) SHARINA BINTI MOHAMED SULTAN 2. ) ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH 3. ) MARY ELIZABETH A/P S. SANDANASAMY AGENSI PEKERJAAN MIMS SDN BHD (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai MIMS Careers Sdn Bhd)

The court held the Arbitral Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice: the recruitment-freeze issue was pleaded and factually tied to visa restrictions, Plaintiffs had sufficient notice and waived timely objection, and the statutory threshold for setting aside an award under s.37 was not met; accordingly OS 9 was dismissed and OS 6 granted to recognise and register the Final Award.

Citation
WA-24NCC(ARB)-9-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff in OS 6; Defendant in OS 9: MIMS Career Sdn Bhd (formerly Agensi Pekerjaan MIMS Sdn Bhd); Defendant in OS 6; Plaintiff in OS 9: Sharina Binti Mohamed Sultan; Defendant in OS 6; Plaintiff in OS 9: Armand Mikhayl Yeoh Abdullah; Defendant in OS 6; Plaintiff in OS 9: Mary Elizabeth A/P S. Sandanasamy
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 December 2021
Case Number
WA-24NCC(ARB)-9-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonss for Recognition/enforcement and Setting Aside of Arbitral Award / Grounds of Judgment — Applications Heard and Finally Determined
Outcome
OS 9 dismissed; OS 6 allowed; Final Award recognised and registrable/enforceable
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Excess of Jurisdiction (new Difference), Breach of Natural Justice, Share Purchase Agreement Representations and Warranties
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law Public Policy Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award Setting Aside Arbitral Award Excess of Jurisdiction (new Difference) Breach of Natural Justice +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MIMS Career Sdn Bhd (formerly Agensi Pekerjaan MIMS Sdn Bhd)

Plaintiff in OS 6; Defendant in OS 9

Sharina Binti Mohamed Sultan

Defendant in OS 6; Plaintiff in OS 9

Armand Mikhayl Yeoh Abdullah

Defendant in OS 6; Plaintiff in OS 9

Mary Elizabeth A/P S. Sandanasamy

Defendant in OS 6; Plaintiff in OS 9

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonss for Recognition/enforcement and Setting Aside of Arbitral Award / Grounds of Judgment — Applications Heard and Finally Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Arbitral Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding a 'recruitment freeze' issue not within the submission to arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the Final Award breached natural justice or Malaysian public policy
  3. 3 Whether the Final Award should be recognised and registered under s.38 of the Arbitration Act 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Arbitral Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice: the recruitment-freeze issue was pleaded and factually tied to visa restrictions, Plaintiffs had sufficient notice and waived timely objection, and the statutory threshold for setting aside an award under s.37 was not met; accordingly OS 9 was dismissed and OS 6 granted to recognise and register the Final Award.

Court Disposition

OS 9 dismissed; OS 6 allowed; Final Award recognised and registrable/enforceable

Orders

  • OS 9 dismissed
  • OS 6 allowed