JKP SDN. BHD. Anas Construction Sdn. Bhd.

JKP SDN. BHD. Anas Construction Sdn. Bhd.

The Court held that the defendant had invoked the court's jurisdiction by applying to strike out the claim (thereby taking a further step and waiving the right to a s 10 stay) and, alternatively, that the arbitration agreement had become inoperative because the defendant wilfully refused to pay its share of the AIAC deposit under the incorporated AIAC Arbitration Rules; accordingly the High Court's stay was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Citation
P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2008-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: JSB; Respondent/defendant: ACSB
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 August 2023
Case Number
P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2008-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Arising From Arbitration Dispute / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (decision Dated 27 October 2023)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order granting unconditional stay set aside; matter remitted to High Court for trial and case management fixed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings Under S 10 Arbitration Act 2005, Arbitration Agreement Rendered Inoperative, Non Payment of Arbitration/administrative Fees, Application to Strike Out Proceedings, Estoppel and Waiver of Arbitration Rights
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law Construction Law Stay of Proceedings Under S 10 Arbitration Act 2005 Arbitration Agreement Rendered Inoperative Non Payment of Arbitration/administrative Fees Application to Strike Out Proceedings +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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSB

Appellant/plaintiff

ACSB

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Arising From Arbitration Dispute / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (decision Dated 27 October 2023)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant who applies to strike out the plaintiff's suit has taken 'any other steps in the proceedings' so as to be disqualified from seeking a stay under s 10 AA 2005
  2. 2 Whether a refusal to pay the AIAC deposits (arbitrator's fees/administrative costs) renders an arbitration agreement inoperative
  3. 3 Whether granting a stay would be futile where a party persistently refuses to pay arbitration deposits

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the defendant had invoked the court's jurisdiction by applying to strike out the claim (thereby taking a further step and waiving the right to a s 10 stay) and, alternatively, that the arbitration agreement had become inoperative because the defendant wilfully refused to pay its share of the AIAC deposit under the incorporated AIAC Arbitration Rules; accordingly the High Court's stay was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order granting unconditional stay set aside; matter remitted to High Court for trial and case management fixed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and High Court stay set aside
  • Order that the High Court proceedings proceed to trial; case management date fixed