1. ) KHONG YOON LOONG 2. ) AGNES LEE LAI HENG 3. ) NG CHEE SIEW 4. ) IRENE HARTANTO @ TAN HIAN LIE 5. ) CHAN YIK LONG 6. ) HO YEE KARM 7. ) LIU KWAI LIEN 8. ) KONG CHOONG HON 9. ) LIM KA TIN 10. ) JAMAL MOHAMED PADIYATH 11. ) FOONG KIM SEON
Applications for stay were dismissed because applicants failed to prove the existence of valid arbitration agreements with each of the 162 plaintiffs and many defendants are non-parties to alleged arbitration agreements so s.10 AA2005 is inapplicable; granting partial stays would cause split litigation, risk inconsistent findings and amount to abuse of process; the court therefore refused to stay and exercised its jurisdiction to hear the whole dispute.
- Citation
- WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiffs: KHONG YOON LOONG & 161 OTHERS; 1st Defendant: ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD; 2nd Defendant: AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA BERHAD; 3rd Defendant: APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD; 4th Defendant: ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD; 5th Defendant: ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD; 6th Defendant: APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD; 7th Defendant: FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD; 8th Defendant: BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON; 9th Defendant: STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS; 10th Defendant: MARK RICHARD LAMB; 11th Defendant: CHOO CHIN THYE; 12th Defendant: LIM SIEW PENG; 13th Defendant: NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS; 14th Defendant: CHONG WAI CHEE; 15th Defendant: KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY; 16th Defendant: NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG; 17th Defendant: TAN SEE SANG; 18th Defendant: LIM SEE FWANG; 19th Defendant: CHONG WEI KIONG; 20th Defendant: SURAYA BINTI ALI; 21st Defendant: POH WEE HON; 22nd Defendant: SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI; 23rd Defendant: TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU JA’AFAR YAM; 24th Defendant: CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD; 25th Defendant: ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 19 September 2023
- Case Number
- WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit (commercial Division) / High Court Determination of Multiple Stay Applications Under Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005; Applications Dismissed
- Outcome
- All specified stay applications dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Stay Pending Arbitration, Non Parties to Arbitration Agreement, Split Litigation, Abuse of Process, Section 9 and Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005
- 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
KHONG YOON LOONG & 161 OTHERS
Plaintiffs
ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD
1st Defendant
AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA BERHAD
2nd Defendant
APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD
3rd Defendant
ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD
4th Defendant
ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD
5th Defendant
APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD
6th Defendant
FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD
7th Defendant
BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON
8th Defendant
STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS
9th Defendant
MARK RICHARD LAMB
10th Defendant
CHOO CHIN THYE
11th Defendant
LIM SIEW PENG
12th Defendant
NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS
13th Defendant
CHONG WAI CHEE
14th Defendant
KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY
15th Defendant
NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG
16th Defendant
TAN SEE SANG
17th Defendant
LIM SEE FWANG
18th Defendant
CHONG WEI KIONG
19th Defendant
SURAYA BINTI ALI
20th Defendant
POH WEE HON
21st Defendant
SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI
22nd Defendant
TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU JA’AFAR YAM
23rd Defendant
CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD
24th Defendant
ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED
25th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (commercial Division) / High Court Determination of Multiple Stay Applications Under Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005; Applications Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether applicants established valid and binding arbitration agreements with each of the 162 plaintiffs
- 2 Whether Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005 applies to non-parties to arbitration agreements
- 3 Whether a stay should be granted where overlap of claims between parties and non-parties risks split litigation and inconsistent findings
Ratio Decidendi
Applications for stay were dismissed because applicants failed to prove the existence of valid arbitration agreements with each of the 162 plaintiffs and many defendants are non-parties to alleged arbitration agreements so s.10 AA2005 is inapplicable; granting partial stays would cause split litigation, risk inconsistent findings and amount to abuse of process; the court therefore refused to stay and exercised its jurisdiction to hear the whole dispute.
Court Disposition
All specified stay applications dismissed
Orders
- Enc 18, Enc 21, Enc 24, Enc 26 and Enc 28 dismissed
- Costs awarded: RM3,000 for each dismissed application subject to allocator
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