TAR PH SDN BHD JANA DCS SDN BHD

TAR PH SDN BHD JANA DCS SDN BHD

The court dismissed the applications to set aside because the TAR Companies failed to demonstrate that the awards dealt with matters outside the submission or conflicted with public policy; the arbitrator had considered pleadings and evidence, made reasoned findings on facts and law, and the high threshold and finality principle under the Arbitration Act 2005 precluded judicial re‑examination; consequently the enforcement applications were allowed.

Citation
WA-24NCC(ARB)-18-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: TAR PH Sdn Bhd; Applicant/plaintiff: TAR PH Family Entertainment Sdn Bhd; Applicant/plaintiff: PH Marina Boulevard Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant/applicant: JANA DCS Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 January 2023
Case Number
WA-24NCC(ARB)-18-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (arbitration) Setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards / Judgment (setting Aside Dismissed; Enforcement Allowed)
Outcome
Setting aside applications dismissed; enforcement applications allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Scope of Submission to Arbitration, Natural Justice, Liquidated Damages, Finality of Arbitration
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law Public Policy Setting Aside Arbitral Award Enforcement of Arbitral Award Scope of Submission to Arbitration Natural Justice +2 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAR PH Sdn Bhd

Applicant/plaintiff

TAR PH Family Entertainment Sdn Bhd

Applicant/plaintiff

PH Marina Boulevard Sdn Bhd

Applicant/plaintiff

JANA DCS Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (arbitration) Setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards / Judgment (setting Aside Dismissed; Enforcement Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral awards dealt with disputes beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the awards contained decisions on matters not contemplated by the arbitration agreement
  3. 3 Whether the awards conflicted with Malaysian public policy including breaches of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the applications to set aside because the TAR Companies failed to demonstrate that the awards dealt with matters outside the submission or conflicted with public policy; the arbitrator had considered pleadings and evidence, made reasoned findings on facts and law, and the high threshold and finality principle under the Arbitration Act 2005 precluded judicial re‑examination; consequently the enforcement applications were allowed.

Court Disposition

Setting aside applications dismissed; enforcement applications allowed

Orders

  • Setting aside originating summons nos. WA-24NCC(ARB)-18-03/2022, WA-24NCC(ARB)-19-03/2022 and WA-24NCC(ARB)-20-03/2022 dismissed
  • Originating summons nos. WA-24NCC(ARB)-26-04/2022, WA-24NCC(ARB)-27-04/2022 and WA-24NCC(ARB)-28-04/2022 to enforce the awards allowed and awards entered as judgment/enforceable