EXTRA EXCEL (M) SDN BHD (Company No: 223246-D) QUEK PECK KEOW

EXTRA EXCEL (M) SDN BHD (Company No: 223246-D) QUEK PECK KEOW

The appeal was allowed because Clause 1.3 is a valid separable arbitration agreement and the Sessions Court erred by treating Clause 10.2 as nullifying the arbitration clause; issues arising from Clause 10.2 concern the merits or jurisdictional matters for the arbitrator, so the proceedings must be stayed and the parties referred to arbitration.

Citation
JA-12A-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: EXTRA EXCEL (M) SDN BHD (Company No: 223246-D); Respondent/plaintiff: QUEK PECK KEOW
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 September 2021
Case Number
JA-12A-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (stay Application)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement, Stay of Proceedings, Separability Doctrine, Kompetenz Kompetenz, Time Bar Clauses, Section 29 Contracts Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Agreement Stay of Proceedings Separability Doctrine Kompetenz Kompetenz Time Bar Clauses +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EXTRA EXCEL (M) SDN BHD (Company No: 223246-D)

Appellant/defendant

QUEK PECK KEOW

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (stay Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of proceedings under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 should have been granted
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration agreement in Clause 1.3 of the EEPP was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed
  3. 3 Whether Clause 10.2 (150‑day rule) rendered the arbitration clause void under section 29 Contracts Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because Clause 1.3 is a valid separable arbitration agreement and the Sessions Court erred by treating Clause 10.2 as nullifying the arbitration clause; issues arising from Clause 10.2 concern the merits or jurisdictional matters for the arbitrator, so the proceedings must be stayed and the parties referred to arbitration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings and referral to arbitration pursuant to Clause 1.3 EEPP and section 10 Arbitration Act 2005
  • All issues concerning Clause 10.2 to be determined by the arbitrator