DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR SRI TINGGI SDN BHD

DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR SRI TINGGI SDN BHD

The High Court set aside the arbitral award because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian law and the doctrine of stare decisis, misapplied the concept of public policy, introduced novel legal conclusions without giving the parties an opportunity to address them (breach of natural justice under s20 and s37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005), and decided issues outside the scope of the submission to arbitration (excess of jurisdiction), thereby conflicting with the public policy of Malaysia under s37 and warranting setting aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (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)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons: Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award (os 30) and Application to Enforce Arbitral Award (os 16) / High Court Judgment on Applications (award Set Aside; Enforcement Dismissed)
Outcome
High Court set aside the arbitral award dated 6 February 2024; DBKL's application in OS 30 granted in part; STSB's enforcement application in OS 16 dismissed with costs; liberty granted to commence a fresh arbitration.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Enforcement of Award, Doctrine of Stare Decisis, Natural Justice, Excess of Jurisdiction, Contractual Notice Clauses
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure Public Policy Setting Aside Arbitral Award Enforcement of Award Doctrine of Stare Decisis 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 4 Authorities cited 13 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 Summons: Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award (os 30) and Application to Enforce Arbitral Award (os 16) / High Court Judgment on Applications (award Set Aside; Enforcement Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator disregarded Malaysian law and the doctrine of stare decisis
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider or misapplied public policy of Malaysia
  3. 3 Whether there was a denial of opportunity to present the case (breach of natural justice)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court set aside the arbitral award because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian law and the doctrine of stare decisis, misapplied the concept of public policy, introduced novel legal conclusions without giving the parties an opportunity to address them (breach of natural justice under s20 and s37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005), and decided issues outside the scope of the submission to arbitration (excess of jurisdiction), thereby conflicting with the public policy of Malaysia under s37 and warranting setting aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005.

Court Disposition

High Court set aside the arbitral award dated 6 February 2024; DBKL's application in OS 30 granted in part; STSB's enforcement application in OS 16 dismissed with costs; liberty granted to commence a fresh arbitration.

Orders

  • Arbitral Award dated 6.2.2024 is set aside 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) and grant prayer 3 with liberty to STSB to commence further arbitration on the same dispute before a different arbitrator.