SRI TINGGI SDN BHD DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

SRI TINGGI SDN BHD DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

The Award was set aside because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian precedent and misunderstood public policy, introduced unforeseen legal reasoning without giving the parties an opportunity to address those points (breach of natural justice under s20 and s37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005), and decided issues beyond the scope of the arbitration (excess of jurisdiction), thereby rendering the Award in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia and liable to be set aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-16-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os 30); Defendant (os 16): Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur; Defendant (os 30); Plaintiff (os 16): Sri Tinggi Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 December 2024
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-16-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summonses Under the Arbitration Act 2005 (setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside (os 30) and to Enforce (os 16) Arbitral Award
Outcome
Arbitral award dated 6.2.2024 set aside; enforcement application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Enforcement of Award, Stare Decisis (precedent), Public Policy, Natural Justice (right to Be Heard), Excess of Jurisdiction / New Difference, Contract Clause Interpretation
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law (public Policy) Setting Aside Arbitral Award Enforcement of Award Stare Decisis (precedent) Public Policy +3 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur

Plaintiff (os 30); Defendant (os 16)

Sri Tinggi Sdn Bhd

Defendant (os 30); Plaintiff (os 16)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summonses Under the Arbitration Act 2005 (setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside (os 30) and to Enforce (os 16) Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator lawfully disregarded Malaysian precedent/stare decisis
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider or misapplied Malaysian public policy such that the award conflicts with public policy of Malaysia
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator denied a party the opportunity to present its case (breach of natural justice / s20 AA 2005)

Ratio Decidendi

The Award was set aside because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian precedent and misunderstood public policy, introduced unforeseen legal reasoning without giving the parties an opportunity to address those points (breach of natural justice under s20 and s37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005), and decided issues beyond the scope of the arbitration (excess of jurisdiction), thereby rendering the Award in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia and liable to be set aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005.

Court Disposition

Arbitral award dated 6.2.2024 set aside; enforcement application dismissed.

Orders

  • Set aside the Final Arbitration Award dated 6.2.2024 pursuant to ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005
  • Grant prayers 1 and 2 of enclosure 1 in OS 30 (set aside award)