Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitration agreement

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2025

1. ) YEONG MUN FUNG 2. ) TOO WAI HOONG 3. ) LEONG CHUNG CHEN 4. ) ON YONG WEE 5. ) YONG SAI KENG HOO VOON HIM

Citation

WA-22NCC-844-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-844-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The arbitration clause in Clause 18.7(b) is valid and binding; the Defendant did not by words or conduct evince a clear and unequivocal intention to abandon arbitration (the Notice of Termination reserved rights and its language is consistent with arbitration enforcement), the procedural steps taken were defensive and not substantive, and the short delay was not inordinate; accordingly a stay under s.10(1) Arbitration Act 2005 was granted pending arbitration.
8 Oct 2025

MTC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. VME PROCESS ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.

Citation

W-03(IM)(NCC)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-03(IM)(NCC)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the LOU did not incorporate the arbitration clause from the VME/SOM Contract because the reference in the LOU was a mere recital intended only to provide context and was insufficient under s9(5) to make the arbitration clause part of the LOU; the LOU was a standalone, temporary undertaking and MTC was not a party to the main contract containing the arbitration clause.
25 Jul 2025

1. ) SEMASA SENTRAL SDN BHD (P dalam Tindakan Asal & D1 dalam Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) GLOBAL FUSION SDN BHD 2. ) Malaysia Resources Corporation Berhad 3. ) MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd (D3 dalam Tuntutan Ba

Citation

WA-22NCvC-320-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-320-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found D3 and D4 had not taken disqualifying steps in the proceedings and that the arbitration clauses in the Letters of Award covered the dispute, but in the exercise of its discretion under s 10(2) the court dismissed the stay applications because D3 and D4 failed to propose or justify conditions to address the reality of multiple non‑parties (consent unlikely), selective invocation of arbitration would cause procedural injustice, risk of duplicative evidence and inconsistent findings, and therefore a stay was inappropriate.
28 Mar 2025

SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SDN BHD Hasdiana Binti Hashim

Citation

BA-24NCC-15-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-15-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found a real dispute existed as to the commencement and expiry of the 1995 contract that falls within the scope of the arbitration clause; the test for interim measures is modified in arbitration context and the Court must not prejudge substantive issues reserved for the arbitrator. The preliminary objection on privilege was dismissed and, applying Sections 11 and 19J AA 2005 and relevant authorities, the Court granted interlocutory injunctions preserving the status quo pending determination of arbitration or 1-10-2028, subject to an undertaking as to damages.
31 Jul 2024

LOW YEE KIAN TIF HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-513-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-513-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted the stay because there was a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute, the Defendant had not taken any disqualifying steps in the proceedings (entry of appearance alone did not amount to a step), the exceptions in s10(1) (null, inoperative or incapable of being performed) did not apply, and the question of whether a 'bona fide dispute' exists is not a threshold for denying a stay where a dispute is pleaded; accordingly the matter must be referred to arbitration under s10(1).
27 Jun 2024

Tandex Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. Tecnicas Reunidas Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCvC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed because there was no arbitration agreement: the Purchase Order did not properly establish an event triggering arbitration, the Plaintiff expressly excluded the GTCC, the Defendant disputed formation of any contract, and conflicting choice of law clauses between the Purchase Order and the GTCC confirm that the GTCC was not incorporated and therefore no arbitration agreement existed under the Arbitration Act 2005.
19 Sept 2023

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

Citation

WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applications for stay were dismissed because applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving a valid arbitration agreement with each plaintiff and several defendants were non-parties to any arbitration agreement so s.10 AA 2005 did not apply; permitting stays would produce split litigation, multiplicity of proceedings and risk inconsistent findings; the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to refuse stays to prevent abuse and ensure just, expeditious and economical resolution; costs awarded RM3,000 each.
3 Jul 2023

AIRBUS HELICOPTERS MALAYSIA SDN BHD AERIAL POWER LINES SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1888-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1888-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the facts the defendant's unqualified oral request for an extension of time at first case management, followed by prompt filing of the stay application before the defence deadline and with no defence filed, did not constitute taking "any other steps in the proceedings" amounting to a clear and unequivocal abandonment of arbitration; therefore mandatory stay under s 10 AA 2005 was required and should be granted.
20 Mar 2023

MITSUBISHI ELEVATOR MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. WABINA CONSTRUCTIONS & ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Citation

PA-A72NCvC-463-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-A72NCvC-463-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Section 10(1) was inapplicable because the defendant had taken steps in the court proceedings (seeking an extension to file a defence and indicating intention to defend), which constituted 'step taken' conduct that precluded reliance on the statutory stay and referral to arbitration; accordingly the stay application was dismissed.
21 Feb 2023

Universiti Malaya (UM) ESA JURUTERA PERUNDING SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22C-73-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-73-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant had taken unreserved procedural steps—repeatedly requesting extensions of time to file a defence and serving a Notice to Produce Documents—without expressly reserving its arbitration rights; those acts amounted to submission to the court's jurisdiction and abandonment of the right to arbitrate, so the mandatory stay under s 10 Arbitration Act 2005 was refused.