PROJALMA SDN BHD FRUHPC CONCEPT SDN BHD

PROJALMA SDN BHD FRUHPC CONCEPT SDN BHD

There was no binding arbitration agreement for the five contested Singapore projects because the work orders and appended standard terms containing arbitration clauses were not signed by FRUHPC; therefore s10 Arbitration Act 2005 did not require a stay. The counterclaim disclosed triable issues and the joinder of individuals was permitted under Order 15 r.3, so the counterclaim could not be struck out summarily under Order 18 r.19 and should be tried together; accordingly the lower court's dismissal of the applicant's applications was correct and is affirmed with costs RM5,000.00.

Citation
WA-12ANCVC-107-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Projalma Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Defendant: FRUHPC Concept Sdn Bhd; Co Plaintiff (counterclaim): Wong Su Sin; Co Plaintiff (counterclaim): Lee Kok Kheong; Co Defendant (counterclaim): Loo Teow Gim; Co Defendant (counterclaim): Leo Lai
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 December 2019
Case Number
WA-12ANCVC-107-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court (high Court Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Stay Pending Arbitration, Arbitration Agreement in Writing, Strike Out of Pleadings, Counterclaim Joinder, Order 15 Rule 3, Order 15 Rule 5, Order 18 Rule 19, Abuse of Process, Inducement to Breach of Contract
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law Company Law Tort (inducement) Stay Pending Arbitration Arbitration Agreement in Writing Strike Out of Pleadings +6 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Projalma Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Plaintiff

FRUHPC Concept Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Defendant

Wong Su Sin

Co Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Lee Kok Kheong

Co Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Loo Teow Gim

Co Defendant (counterclaim)

Leo Lai

Co Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court (high Court Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there existed a binding arbitration agreement for the five Singapore projects
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed under s10 Arbitration Act 2005
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim should be struck out under Order 18 r.19 or ordered for separate trial under Order 15 r.5

Ratio Decidendi

There was no binding arbitration agreement for the five contested Singapore projects because the work orders and appended standard terms containing arbitration clauses were not signed by FRUHPC; therefore s10 Arbitration Act 2005 did not require a stay. The counterclaim disclosed triable issues and the joinder of individuals was permitted under Order 15 r.3, so the counterclaim could not be struck out summarily under Order 18 r.19 and should be tried together; accordingly the lower court's dismissal of the applicant's applications was correct and is affirmed with costs RM5,000.00.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of MYR 5,000.00 to respondent