MIMS CAREER SDN BHD 1. ) SHARINA BINTI MOHAMED SULTAN 2. ) ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH 3. ) MARY ELIZABETH A/P S. SANDANASAMY

MIMS CAREER SDN BHD 1. ) SHARINA BINTI MOHAMED SULTAN 2. ) ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH 3. ) MARY ELIZABETH A/P S. SANDANASAMY

The court held OS 9 (application to set aside) must be dismissed because the Arbitral Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction: the 'recruitment freeze' allegation was factually intertwined with the pleaded visa restriction and was sufficiently pleaded and evidenced; the applicants waived timely objections and suffered no prejudice; given the high statutory threshold and principle of finality in the Arbitration Act 2005, the award stood. Consequently OS 6 to recognize and register the Final Award under s38 was allowed.

Citation
WA-24NCC(ARB)-6-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os 6) / Defendant (os 9): MIMS Career Sdn Bhd (Agensi Pekerjaan MIMS Sdn Bhd); Defendant (os 6) / Plaintiff (os 9): Sharina Binti Mohamed Sultan; Defendant (os 6) / Plaintiff (os 9): Armand Mikhayl Yeoh Abdullah; Defendant (os 6) / Plaintiff (os 9): Mary Elizabeth A/P S. Sandanasamy
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 December 2021
Case Number
WA-24NCC(ARB)-6-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonss Under Arbitration Act 2005 (recognition/enforcement and Setting Aside of Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Competing Originating Summons (os 9 to Set Aside Award; OS 6 to Recognize and Register Award)
Outcome
OS 9 dismissed; OS 6 allowed
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Breach of Natural Justice, Share Purchase Agreement Disputes
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law Enforcement of Foreign/domestic Awards Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award Setting Aside Arbitral Award Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MIMS Career Sdn Bhd (Agensi Pekerjaan MIMS Sdn Bhd)

Plaintiff (os 6) / Defendant (os 9)

Sharina Binti Mohamed Sultan

Defendant (os 6) / Plaintiff (os 9)

Armand Mikhayl Yeoh Abdullah

Defendant (os 6) / Plaintiff (os 9)

Mary Elizabeth A/P S. Sandanasamy

Defendant (os 6) / Plaintiff (os 9)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonss Under Arbitration Act 2005 (recognition/enforcement and Setting Aside of Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Competing Originating Summons (os 9 to Set Aside Award; OS 6 to Recognize and Register Award)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Arbitral Tribunal decided a 'new difference'/exceeded jurisdiction by treating 'recruitment freeze' as distinct from pleaded visa restriction
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of natural justice/public policy sufficient to set aside the Final Award
  3. 3 Whether the Final Award is enforceable and should be recognized and registered under s38 AA 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The court held OS 9 (application to set aside) must be dismissed because the Arbitral Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction: the 'recruitment freeze' allegation was factually intertwined with the pleaded visa restriction and was sufficiently pleaded and evidenced; the applicants waived timely objections and suffered no prejudice; given the high statutory threshold and principle of finality in the Arbitration Act 2005, the award stood. Consequently OS 6 to recognize and register the Final Award under s38 was allowed.

Court Disposition

OS 9 dismissed; OS 6 allowed

Orders

  • OS 9 (application to set aside the Final Award dated 16.3.2020) is dismissed
  • OS 6 (application to recognize and register the Final Award dated 16.3.2020) is allowed; Final Award recognized and entitled to enforcement/registration under section 38 Arbitration Act 2005