Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Court held that valid, binding and capable arbitration agreements existed in the relevant Letters of Award; the arbitration clause in LA 24.8.2016 was sufficiently certain to refer disputes to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC); under s10 Arbitration Act 2005 a mandatory stay was required and the court must refer the parties to arbitration, leaving factual disputes about a putative Collaboration Agreement and multiplicity issues to the arbitral tribunal or later determination.

Citation
WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: UZMA ENGINEERING SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: KHAN CO. LTD; 2nd Defendant: KONG OFFSHORE MALAYSIA SDN BHD (In Liquidator)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 August 2023
Case Number
WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory – Applications for Stay Under Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005
Outcome
Court granted the defendants' applications to stay proceedings and referred the disputes to arbitration; Plaintiff's injunction application (Enclosure 53) dismissed as academic.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings Under S10 Arbitration Act 2005, Existence and Construction of Arbitration Clauses, Seat of Arbitration/administrative Centre, Kompetenz‑kompetenz (tribunal Jurisdiction), Anti‑suit Injunction, Multiplicity of Proceedings/consolidation (s24 A)
Source Language
Malay/English

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UZMA ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Plaintiff

KHAN CO. LTD

1st Defendant

KONG OFFSHORE MALAYSIA SDN BHD (In Liquidator)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Interlocutory – Applications for Stay Under Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005

  1. 1 Whether valid arbitration agreements exist between the parties
  2. 2 Whether any arbitration agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of performance
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration clause is ambiguous as to seat and administering institution

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that valid, binding and capable arbitration agreements existed in the relevant Letters of Award; the arbitration clause in LA 24.8.2016 was sufficiently certain to refer disputes to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC); under s10 Arbitration Act 2005 a mandatory stay was required and the court must refer the parties to arbitration, leaving factual disputes about a putative Collaboration Agreement and multiplicity issues to the arbitral tribunal or later determination.

Court Disposition

Court granted the defendants' applications to stay proceedings and referred the disputes to arbitration; Plaintiff's injunction application (Enclosure 53) dismissed as academic.

Orders

  • Stay all proceedings in this civil suit and refer the parties to arbitration pursuant to section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (Orders in Terms granted for Enclosure 8 and Enclosure 84)
  • Enclosure 53 (Plaintiff's anti‑suit injunction application) dismissed with costs