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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether valid arbitration agreements exist between the parties
- 2 Whether any arbitration agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of performance
- 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
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