1. ) SEMASA SENTRAL SDN BHD (P dalam Tindakan Asal & D1 dalam Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) GLOBAL FUSION SDN BHD 2. ) Malaysia Resources Corporation Berhad 3. ) MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd (D3 dalam Tuntutan Ba

1. ) SEMASA SENTRAL SDN BHD (P dalam Tindakan Asal & D1 dalam Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) GLOBAL FUSION SDN BHD 2. ) Malaysia Resources Corporation Berhad 3. ) MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd (D3 dalam Tuntutan Ba

The court found D3 and D4 had not taken disqualifying steps in the proceedings and that the arbitration clauses in the Letters of Award covered the dispute, but in the exercise of its discretion under s 10(2) the court dismissed the stay applications because D3 and D4 failed to propose or justify conditions to address the reality of multiple non‑parties (consent unlikely), selective invocation of arbitration would cause procedural injustice, risk of duplicative evidence and inconsistent findings, and therefore a stay was inappropriate.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-320-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant (counterclaim): Semasa Sentral Sdn Bhd; Defendant / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Global Fusion Sdn Bhd; Plaintiff (counterclaim): Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd; Defendant (counterclaim): Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd; 4th Defendant (counterclaim): One Sentral Park Sdn Bhd; Defendant (counterclaim): S&S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd; Defendant (counterclaim): Sham Shamrat Sen Gupta; Defendant (counterclaim): Kwan Joon Hoe; Defendant (counterclaim): Mohd Imran bin Mohamad Salim
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 July 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-320-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Suit Interlocutory Application Under S 10 Arbitration Act 2005 / Application for Stay of Proceedings Dismissed at Interlocutory Stage; Appeal Noted
Outcome
Applications by the 3rd and 4th Defendants for stay of proceedings pending arbitration dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitrability, Non‑party Issues, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Oral Agreement
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Commercial Law Stay of Proceedings Arbitration Agreement Arbitrability +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Semasa Sentral Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff / Defendant (counterclaim)

Global Fusion Sdn Bhd

Defendant / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad

Defendant (counterclaim)

MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

One Sentral Park Sdn Bhd

4th Defendant (counterclaim)

S&S Quest Resources Sdn Bhd

Defendant (counterclaim)

Sham Shamrat Sen Gupta

Defendant (counterclaim)

Kwan Joon Hoe

Defendant (counterclaim)

Mohd Imran bin Mohamad Salim

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Suit Interlocutory Application Under S 10 Arbitration Act 2005 / Application for Stay of Proceedings Dismissed at Interlocutory Stage; Appeal Noted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants had taken steps in the court proceedings so as to forfeit right to arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration clauses in the Letters of Award cover the disputes pleaded in the Amended Counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether a stay should be ordered where multiple non‑parties to the arbitration agreement are implicated and consent is unlikely

Ratio Decidendi

The court found D3 and D4 had not taken disqualifying steps in the proceedings and that the arbitration clauses in the Letters of Award covered the dispute, but in the exercise of its discretion under s 10(2) the court dismissed the stay applications because D3 and D4 failed to propose or justify conditions to address the reality of multiple non‑parties (consent unlikely), selective invocation of arbitration would cause procedural injustice, risk of duplicative evidence and inconsistent findings, and therefore a stay was inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Applications by the 3rd and 4th Defendants for stay of proceedings pending arbitration dismissed

Orders

  • Applications in encls. 76 and 77 dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Plaintiffs against the 3rd Defendant: RM3500.00 subject to allocatur