AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai KURNIA INSURANS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD) (No. Syarikat: 44191-P) TOK KOK LEONG (No. K/P: 720922-14-5587) (yang berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya YIT LEONG CRANE SERVICES ) (No. Perniagaan: 0012
Condition 6 required that differences be referred to an arbitrator appointed in writing within the contractual timeframes; the defendant's written request issued six days before the 12-month proviso could not realistically permit the appointment mechanism to be completed as required by Condition 6, rendering the arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed for the purposes of s10(1); no undue hardship justified an extension under s45; accordingly the stay was not required and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
- Citation
- WA-12ANCC-63-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Appellant / Defendant: AMGeneral Insurance Berhad (formerly Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad); Respondent / Plaintiff: Tok Kok Leong (trading as Yit Leong Crane Services)
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 10 March 2020
- Case Number
- WA-12ANCC-63-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (stay Pending Arbitration) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Agreement Construction, Repudiation of Policy, Time Limits for Arbitration, Extension of Time Under S45, Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005 Exceptions
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AMGeneral Insurance Berhad (formerly Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad)
Appellant / Defendant
Tok Kok Leong (trading as Yit Leong Crane Services)
Respondent / Plaintiff
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (stay Pending Arbitration) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court must grant a stay under s10(1) Arbitration Act 2005 given an arbitration clause requiring appointment of an arbitrator within contractual timeframes
- 2 Whether the arbitration agreement became inoperative or incapable of being performed because the appointment process could not be completed within the time specified in the Policy's Condition 6
- 3 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under s45 to extend time to make the arbitration agreement operative
Ratio Decidendi
Condition 6 required that differences be referred to an arbitrator appointed in writing within the contractual timeframes; the defendant's written request issued six days before the 12-month proviso could not realistically permit the appointment mechanism to be completed as required by Condition 6, rendering the arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed for the purposes of s10(1); no undue hardship justified an extension under s45; accordingly the stay was not required and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment